RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: How maximal safe resection of glioblastoma (GBM) is implemented in the clinical setting remains understudied. Here, we utilized a survey-based approach to understand physician perspectives on this matter. METHODS: Scenarios involving GBMs were presented to physicians who were asked to select from planned subtotal resection, gross total resection (GTR), medical therapy only, or palliative care. Demographic, experience, and Likert scales of value assessment were collected. RESULTS: In the scenario involving a corpus callosum GBM, 2.33% opted for GTR. For a right frontal GBM, 91.7% opted for GTR. In contrast, only 30.8% chose GTR of a right motor strip GBM (P < 0.001). When presented with a left motor strip GBM, fewer respondents (12.7%, P < 0.001) opted for GTR. Physicians who placed a high value on preserving physical independence were more likely to forgo GTR for right motor GBMs (hazard ratio = 0.068, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.97, P = 0.035), and physicians who placed a high value on their faith were more likely to opt for surgical treatments that differ from the general consensus, for instance opting for GTR of the corpus callosum GBM (hazard ratio = 4.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.63-10.74, P = 0.003). No other associations were found between the choice for GTR and other variables collected. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that while maximal safe resection remains a guiding principle for GBM resection, physician preference in terms of the extent of resection varies significantly as a function of tumor location and personal values.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Physician preference items (PPIs) are high-cost medical devices for which clinicians express firm preferences with respect to a particular manufacturer or product. This study aims to identify the most important factors in the choice of new PPIs (hip or knee prosthesis) and infer about the existence of possible response biases in using 2 alternative stated preference techniques. METHODS: Six key attributes with 3 levels each were identified based on a literature review and clinical experts' opinions. An online survey was administered to Italian hospital orthopedists using type 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) and binary discrete choice experiment (DCE). BWS data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and conditional logit model. A mixed logit regression model was applied to DCE data, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) was estimated. All analyses were conducted using Stata 16. RESULTS: A sample of 108 orthopedists were enrolled. In BWS, the most important attribute was "clinical evidence," followed by "quality of products," while the least relevant items were "relationship with the sales representative" and "cost." DCE results suggested instead that orthopedists prefer high-quality products with robust clinical evidence, positive health technology assessment recommendation and affordable cost, and for which they have a consolidated experience of use and a good relationship with the sales representative. CONCLUSIONS: The elicitation of preferences for PPIs using alternative methods can lead to different results. The BWS of type 1, which is similar to a ranking exercise, seems to be more affected by acquiescent responding and social desirability than the DCE, which introduces tradeoffs in the choice task and is likely to reveal more about true preferences. HIGHLIGHTS: Physician preference items (PPIs) are medical devices particularly exposed to physicians' choice with regard to type of product and supplier.Some established techniques of collecting preferences can be affected by response biases such as acquiescent responding and social desirability.Discrete choice experiments, introducing more complex tradeoffs in the choice task, are likely to mitigate such biases and reveal true physicians' preferences for PPIs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) clazosentan is being investigated for the medical prevention of cerebral vasospasm and associated complications, such as delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). This study quantified how clinicians weigh the benefits and risks of ERAs for DCI prevention to better understand their treatment needs and expectations. Methods: An online choice experiment was conducted to elicit preferences of neurologists, intensivists, and neurosurgeons treating aSAH in the US and UK for the use of ERAs. The design of the choice experiment was informed by a feasibility assessment (N = 100), one-on-one interviews with clinicians (N = 10), a qualitative pilot (N = 13), and a quantitative pilot (N = 50). Selected treatment attributes included in the choice experiment were: one benefit (likelihood of DCI); and three risks (lung complications, hypotension, and anemia). In the choice experiment, clinicians repeatedly chose best and worst treatment options based on a scenario of a patient being treated in the ICU after aneurism repair. A correlated mixed logit model determined the relative attribute importance (RAI) and associated highest density interval (HDI) as well as acceptable benefit-risk trade-offs. Results: The final choice experiment was completed by 350 clinicians (116 neurologists, 129 intensivists/intensive care clinicians, and 105 neurosurgeons; mean age, 47.4 years). Reducing the likelihood of DCI (RAI = 56.5% [HDI, 53.6-59.5%]) had the largest impact on clinicians' treatment choices, followed by avoiding the risks of lung complications (RAI = 29.6% [HDI, 27.1-32.3%]), hypotension (RAI = 9.2% [HDI, 7.5-10.8%]), and anemia (RAI = 4.7% [HDI, 3.7-5.8%]). Clinicians expected the likelihood of DCI to decrease by ≥8.1% for a 20% increase in the risk of lung complications, ≥2.4% for a 20% increase in the risk of hypotension, and ≥1.2% for a 20% increase in the risk of anemia. Conclusions: Clinicians were willing to accept certain increased risks of adverse events for a reduced risk of DCI after aSAH. The likelihood of DCI occurring after aSAH can therefore be considered a clinically relevant endpoint in aSAH treatment development. Thus, evaluations of ERAs might focus on whether improvements (i.e., reductions) in the likelihood of DCI justify the risks of adverse events.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major global health crisis in need of more effective therapies. However, difficult choices to optimize value-based care will need to be made. While identifying preferred therapeutic attributes of new AD therapies is necessary, few studies have explored how preferences may vary between the stakeholders. In this study, the trade-offs among key attributes of amyloid plaque-lowering therapies for AD were assessed using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and compared between caregivers and neurologists. METHODS: An initial pilot study was conducted to identify the potentially relevant features of a new therapy. The DCE evaluated seven drug attributes: clinical effects in terms of delay in AD progression over the standard of care (SOC), variation in clinical effects, biomarker response (achieving amyloid plaque clearance on PET scan), amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema (ARIA-E), duration of therapy, need for treatment titration as well as route, and frequency of drug administration. Respondents were then randomly presented with 12 choice sets of treatment options and asked to select their preferred option in each choice set. Hierarchical Bayesian regression modeling was used to estimate weighted preference attributes, which were presented as mean partial utility scores (pUS), with higher scores suggesting an increased preference. RESULTS: Both caregivers (n = 137) and neurologists (n = 161) considered clinical effects (mean pUS = 0.47 and 0.82) and a 5% incremental in ARIA-E (mean pUS = - 0.26 and - 0.52) to be highly impactful determinants of therapeutic choice. In contrast, variation in clinical effects (mean pUS = 0.12 and 0.14) and treatment duration (mean pUS = - 0.02 and - 0.13) were the least important characteristics of any new treatment. Neurologists' also indicated that subcutaneous drug delivery (mean pUS = 0.42 vs. 0.07) and administration every 4 weeks (mean pUS = 1.0 vs. 0.20) are highly desirable therapeutic features. Respondents were willing to accept up to a 9% increment in ARIA-E for one additional year of delayed progression. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers and neurologists considered incremental clinical benefit over SOC and safety to be highly desirable qualities for a new drug that could clear amyloid plaques and delay clinical progression and indicated a willingness to accept incremental ARIA-E to achieve additional clinical benefits.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder associated with a high burden of illness. New therapies under development include agents that target amyloid-beta (Aß), a key component in AD pathogenesis. Understanding the decision-making process for new AD drugs would help determine if such therapies should be adopted by society. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied to three key stakeholder groups to assess treatment alternatives for AD based on a multitude of decision trade-offs covering main components of care. METHODS: AD caregivers (n = 117), neurologists (n = 90), and payors (n = 90) from the USA received an online survey. The decision problem was broken down into four decision criterion and 12 subcriteria for two treatment scenarios: an Aß-targeted therapy vs. the standard of care (SOC). Respondents were asked to indicate how much they preferred one option over another on a scale from 1 (equal preference) to 9 (high preference) based on each criterion and subcriterion. The decision criteria and subcriteria were weighted and presented as partial utility scores (pUS), with higher scores suggesting an increased preference for that decision-making component. RESULTS: Caregivers and payors applied the highest value to need for intervention (mean pUS = 0.303 and 0.259) and clinical outcomes (mean pUS = 0.286 and 0.377). In contrast, neurologists placed the highest value on clinical outcomes and types of benefits (mean pUS = 0.436 and 0.248). When decision subcriteria were examined, efficacy (mean pUS = 0.115, 0.219, and 0.166) and the type of patient benefits (mean pUS = 0.135, 0.178, and 0.126) were among the most valued by caregivers, neurologists, and payors. CONCLUSION: All groups placed the highest value on drug efficacy and types of benefit derived by patients. In contrast, cost implications were among the least important aspects in their decision-making.

RESUMEN

Background: With progress being made in the treatment of cancer, various clinical and treatment options are being pursued. In China, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is used widely in the treatment of cancer. Objective: To estimate TCM treatment preferences and SDM mode of physicians in China. Methods: This study was conducted among physicians (n=185) from nine tertiary hospitals in China by discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) survey. The DCE was developed with the inclusion of the most relevant attributes at appropriate levels for the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The empirical data analyses of physicians were performed using mixed logit models. Additionally, subgroup analysis was conducted. Results: In total, 185 respondents completed the questionnaire. All attributes were statistically significant except out-of-pocket costs. Physicians showed the strongest preferences for increasing disease control rate, relieving nausea and vomiting, and reducing the risk of side effects. Most of the physicians (78.38%) self-reported a high willingness to use SDM during the decision-making process. The physicians with a higher SDM-Q-Doc score had more preference for improving all three attributes than those with a lower score. Little variation was found in preferences among the physicians with other sociodemographic characteristics. Conclusion: In China, physicians considered disease control rate as the most essential attribute in the TCM treatment of lung cancer. The physicians in China mainly preferred SDM, and the preference was different according to SDM mode when involving the TCM therapy for patients with lung cancer. The study findings could inform future TCM therapy for lung cancer and promote SDM.

RESUMEN

Objective.Treatment planning of radiation therapy is a time-consuming task. It is desirable to develop automatic planning approaches to generate plans favorable to physicians. The purpose of this study is to develop a deep learning based virtual physician network (VPN) that models physician's preference on plan approval for prostate cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).Approach.VPN takes one planning target volume (PTV) and eight organs at risk structure images, as well as a dose distribution of a plan seeking approval as input. It outputs a probability of approving the plan, and a dose distribution indicating improvements to the input dose. Due to the lack of unapproved plans in our database, VPN is trained using an adversarial framework. 68 prostate cancer patients who received 45Gyin 5-fraction SBRT were selected in this study, with 60 patients for training and cross validation, and 8 patients for independent testing.Main results.The trained VPN was able to differentiate approved and unapproved plans with Area under the curve 0.97 for testing data. For unapproved plans, after applying VPN's suggested dose improvement, the improved dose agreed with ground truth with relative differences2.03±2.17%for PTVD98%,0.49±0.29%for PTVV95%,3.08±2.24%for penile bulbDmean,3.73±2.20%for rectumV50%,and2.06±1.73%for bladderV50%.Significance.VPN was developed to accurately model a physician's preference on plan approval and to provide suggestions on how to improve the dose distribution.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: As research continues, new drugs will no doubt be added to the current pool of treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This raises the need for studies to determine prescriber preferences for different pharmacological options and the factors that influence their choice of treatment. Here we aim to explore physician preferences in the systemic treatment of moderate-to-severe AD, identify the sociodemographic characteristics that can influence physician preferences, and evaluate their satisfaction with current AD therapies. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey was administered to physicians treating patients with AD in Spain. Results were analyzed using a conditional logit model to estimate the relative importance of each attribute and the maximum risk accepted to achieve therapeutic benefit. RESULTS: A total of 28 respondents completed the DCE survey (67.9% female, mean age 45.9 years). Participants identified objective clinical efficacy and risk of severe adverse events (AEs) as the most important attributes, followed by improvement in sleep and pruritus and faster onset of action from the start of the treatment. Respondents gave less importance to mode of administration and therapeutic benefit in other atopic conditions. Respondents were willing to accept an increased risk of severe AEs and mild-to-moderate AEs leading to treatment discontinuation due to intolerance in order to obtain improvements in efficacy, sleep, and pruritus, and long-term clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: Our findings can help prescribers choose the most appropriate systemic AD therapy.

RESUMEN

A long-acting injectable (LAI) antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen is now available as a treatment option for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1. This study assessed preference for a LAI regimen using an online survey of virally suppressed people living with HIV (PLWH) and physicians treating HIV in the US and Canada. Preference was elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with three choice options (switch to a LAI regimen, switch to another daily oral ART regimen, or stay on their current daily oral ART regimen) and four treatment attributes. A total of 553 PLWH and 450 physicians completed the survey. From the DCE results, 59% of PLWH were predicted to prefer a LAI over an alternative oral ART or staying on their current oral treatment, and 55-66% of physicians were predicted to recommend LAI for PLWH, depending on the treatment challenge scenario presented. PLWH indicated LAI would remove daily reminders of HIV (75%) and reduce feelings of being stigmatized (68%). A majority of PLWH and physicians preferred a LAI over oral ART to overcome treatment challenges such as daily pill burden and adherence. These benefits of LAI ART along with preferences of PLWH and physicians can help to inform ART choice.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the ethical appropriateness and clinical benefits of shared decision-making (SDM) are accumulating. This study aimed to not only identify physicians' perspectives on SDM, and practices related to end-of-life care in particular, but also to gauge the effect of SDM education on physicians in Korea. METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire survey using a modified Delphi process was delivered to nephrologists and internal medicine trainees at 17 university hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 309 physicians completed the survey. Although respondents reported that 69.9% of their practical decisions were made using SDM, 59.9% reported that it is not being applied appropriately. Only 12.3% of respondents had received education on SDM as part of their training. The main obstacles to appropriate SDM were identified as lack of time (46.0%), educational materials and tools (29.4%), and education on SDM (24.3%). Although only a few respondents had received training on SDM, the proportion of those who thought they were using SDM appropriately in actual practice was high; the proportion of those who chose lack of time and education as factors that hindered the proper application of SDM was low. CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents believed that SDM was not being implemented properly in Korea, despite its use in actual practice. To improve the effectiveness of SDM in the Korean medical system, appropriate training programs and supplemental policies that guarantee sufficient application time are required.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Besides modeling/simulation-based analysis, no post-approval studies have evaluated the optimal administration frequency of pembrolizumab in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study to evaluate the association between survival outcomes and treatment extensions/delays of pembrolizumab-based regimens in patients with advanced NSCLC. Those who had received at least 4 cycles in routine practice were divided into 2 groups: nonstandard (Non-Std, ≥ 2 cycles at intervals > 3 weeks + 3 days) and standard (Std, all cycles every 3 weeks or 1 cycle > 3 weeks + 3 days). RESULTS: Among 150 patients, 92 (61%) were eligible for the study (Non-Std, 27; Std, 65). The reasons for patients with extensions/delays in the Non-Std group included: immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (33%), non-irAE-related medical issues (26%), and patient-physician preference (41%). The Non-Std group was more likely to have a higher programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score, a higher number of treatment cycles, and pembrolizumab monotherapy. Univariate and 6-month landmark analyses showed longer median overall survival and progression-free survival in the Non-Std group compared with the Std group. After multivariable adjustment for confounding factors, there was no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-4.8; P = .824) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-9.6; P = .157) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that a significant proportion of patients with advanced NSCLC receive pembrolizumab-based regimens with extended intervals or delays in routine clinical practice and with similar outcomes to those receiving treatment at label-specified 3-week intervals. Given the durability of benefit seen and the potential for cost reduction and decreased infusion frequency in these patients, this requires validation in prospective trials.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Multiple modes of administration are available for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) treatments. This study examined patient and physician characteristics associated with the choice of weekly subcutaneous (SC) injection or monthly intravenous (IV) infusion for an unspecified SLE treatment. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, US web-based survey using a direct elicitation, stated-preference methodology (HO-16-16706). Two hundred patients and 200 physicians were asked to choose between IV or SC administration in a hypothetical scenario. Pairwise and multivariate analyses estimated the odds ratio (OR) for the likelihood of choosing SC over IV for respondent characteristics. RESULTS: Among patients, taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increased the likelihood of choosing SC injection (OR 3.884), whilst having SLE-related skin problems, a fear of needles or self-injection, and never needing help around the house decreased the likelihood (OR 0.28, 0.13, 0.12, respectively; all p ≤ 0.05). Among physicians, > 95% recommended SC injection for patients who live or work far from an infusion center, prefer SC administration, and never or rarely miss medication doses. Physician characteristics including age and treatment practice also influenced choice. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and physician characteristics influence choice of SC versus IV therapy for SLE. These findings might inform shared decision-making, which could lead to improved patient outcomes. Key Points • Data regarding patient and physician preference for different modes of administration of SLE therapy are sparse. • This cross-sectional, US web-based study showed that patient and physician characteristics influence choice of SC versus IV therapy for SLE. • A degree of disconnect exists between how factors influence patients' choice and how those characteristics influence physicians' choice of SLE treatment mode of administration. • The findings from this study might inform shared decision-making, which could improve alignment between treatment choice and patient preferences, treatment satisfaction, adherence, and improved patient outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Vasoactive drugs are frequently used in combination with endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB). The aim of study was to assess physicians' preference of vasoactive agents in acute EVB, their reasons of preference and efficacy and safety of these short course regimens. METHODS: Cirrhotic patients with suspected EVB were screened (n = 352). Eligible patients were assigned based on the physician's preference to either somatostatin (group S) or terlipressin (group T) followed by EVL. In group S, intravenous bolus (250 µg) of somatostatin followed by 250 µg/hour was continued for three days. In group T, 2 mg bolus injection of terlipressin was followed by 1 mg infusion every 6 h for three days. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 41 in group S and 109 in group T. Reasons for physician preference was convenience in administration (77.1%) for group T and good safety profile (73.2%) for group S. Very early rebleeding within 49-120 h occurred in one patient in groups S and T (p = 0.469). Four patients in group S and 14 patients in group T have variceal rebleeding episodes within 6-42 d (p = 0.781). Overall treatment-related adverse effects were compatible in groups S and T (p = 0.878), but the total cost of terlipressin and somatostatin differed i.e., USD 621.32 and USD 496.43 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Terlipressin is the preferred vasoactive agent by physicians in our institution for acute EVB. Convenience in administration and safety profile are main considerations of physicians. Safety and hemostatic effects did not differ significantly between short-course somatostatin or terlipressin, although terlipressin is more expensive.

RESUMEN

Purpose: This study aimed to elicit patient and physician preferences for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatments in the United States (US). Patients and methods: The following UC treatment attributes included in the discrete-choice experiment (DCE) were identified during qualitative interviews with both patients and physicians: time to symptom improvement, chance of long-term symptom control, risks of serious infection and malignancy, mode and frequency of administration, and need for steroids. The DCE survey instruments were developed and administered to patients and physicians. A random-parameters logit model was used to estimate preference weights and conditional relative importance for these attributes. Results: A total of 200 patients with moderate to severe UC (status determined using self-reported medication history) and 200 gastroenterologists completed the survey. Patients' average age was 42 years; most (59%) were female. Patients considered symptom control 2.5 times as important as time to symptom improvement and 5-year risk of malignancy almost as important as long-term symptom control (relative importance, 0.79 vs 0.96 for long-term symptom control); they preferred oral to subcutaneous or intravenous administration (relative importance, 0.47 vs 0.11 and 0.18, respectively). For physicians, symptom control was the most important attribute and was five times as important as the risk of malignancy. Conclusion: Both patients and physicians considered long-term symptom control the most important attribute relative to others; however, risk of malignancy was of almost-equal importance to patients but not physicians. Differences between patients' and physicians' preferences highlight the need for improved communication about the relevant benefits and risks of different UC treatments to improve therapeutic decision-making.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The USA devotes roughly $200 billion (6%) of annual national health expenditures to medical devices. A substantial proportion of this spending occurs during orthopedic (eg, hip and knee) arthroplasties - two high-volume hospital procedures. The implants used in these procedures are commonly known as physician preference items (PPIs), reflecting the physician's choice of implant and vendor used. The foundations for this preference are not entirely clear. This study examines what implant and vendor characteristics, as evaluated by orthopedic surgeons, are associated with their preference. It also examines other factors (eg, financial relationships and vendor tenure) that may contribute to implant preference. METHODS: We surveyed all practicing orthopedic surgeons performing 12 or more implant procedures annually in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The survey identified each surgeon's preferred hip/knee vendor as well as the factors that surgeons state they use in selecting that primary vendor. We compared the surgeons' evaluation of multiple characteristics of implants and vendors using analysis of variance techniques, controlling for surgeon characteristics, hospital characteristics, and surgeon-vendor ties that might influence these evaluations. RESULTS: Physician's preference is heavily influenced by technology/implant factors and sales/service factors. Other considerations such as vendor reputation, financial relationships with the vendor, and implant cost seem less important. These findings hold regardless of implant type (hip vs knee) and specific vendor. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there is a great deal of consistency in the factors that surgeons state they use to evaluate PPIs such as hip and knee implants. The findings offer an empirically derived definition of PPIs that is consistent with the product and nonproduct strategies pursued by medical device companies. PPIs are products that surgeons rate favorably on the twin dimensions of technology and sales/service.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Although warfarin has historically been the standard of care for preventing ischemic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is rapidly increasing. In this study, we examined the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients continuing warfarin therapy and investigated reasons for warfarin continuation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Each study site consecutively registered 10 patients with NVAF who had been taking warfarin for at least 12 months. Demographic and clinical characteristics and international normalized ratio (INR) values were collected from medical records. Physicians responded to questionnaires exploring reasons for continuing warfarin therapy. RESULTS: Overall, 313 patients treated with warfarin were registered at 33 sites. Mean ± SD age was 76.4±9.6 years; 62.9% of patients were male. The proportion of patients with INR values in the therapeutic range was 74.6% and 48.8% among patients aged ≥70 years and <70 years, respectively. Over half of the patients (51.4%) had been advised to switch from warfarin to DOACs; the primary physician-reported reason for this recommendation was superior safety and effectiveness. However, patients reported continuing warfarin because of the high price of DOACs (47.2%) and long-term positive experiences with warfarin (31.7%). The remaining 48.6% of patients with NVAF had never been counseled by their physicians about DOACs as an alternative to warfarin. For 76% of these patients, physicians favored warfarin for medical reasons, such as impaired renal function and controlled INR, but in the remaining patients, medical reasons for continuing warfarin were lacking. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of the patients in this study were informed of warfarin alternatives primarily for improved efficacy and safety, but elected not to change regimens because of the high price of DOACs and long-term positive experiences with warfarin. In the remaining half, physician preference or specific patient characteristics prevented a change in therapy.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare physician preferences regarding the commercially available spectral-domain (SD) optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and swept-source (SS) OCTA prototype device. DESIGN: Comparative analysis of diagnostic instruments was performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects at the University of Washington Eye Institute and Harborview Medical Center were prospectively recruited and imaged with the Zeiss SD OCTA (HD-5000, Angioplex) and Zeiss SS OCTA (Plex Elite, Everest) devices on the same day. The study included 10 eyes from 10 subjects diagnosed with a retinal/choroidal disease. Deidentified images were compiled into a survey and sent to retina specialists in various countries. The survey presented masked SD and SS images of each eye for each retinal sublayer side by side. Respondents were asked about their image preference and impact on clinical management. A priori and post hoc preferences for SD vs SS were collected. RESULTS: Fifty-four retina specialists responded to the survey. Median years in practice was 3.00 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.50-17.00). At baseline, 23 (48%) physicians owned an OCTA machine. The majority of physician responses showed a preference for the SS over SD OCTA, independent of the retinal pathology shown (n=454 overall responses, 74%). Nevertheless, the majority indicated that both SD and SS would be equally valuable in informing clinical decisions (n=374 overall responses, 61%). CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that the majority of retina specialists surveyed prefer SS over SD OCTA based on image quality, regardless of the retinal pathology shown. Regarding the clinical utility of each modality, the majority of physicians perceive SD and SS as equally effective.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: As older women with breast cancer (BC) are underrepresented in trials, it is often unclear what represents the best treatment option for this patient group. To understand how oncologists approach the management of BC in older patients, we assessed their treatment recommendations. METHODS: In an online survey, 106 surgical, 37 radiation and 31 medical oncologists provided a treatment recommendation for hypothetical patients aged >70 years. Scenarios included loco-regional therapy with patient age varying at 76 and 84 years; systemic therapy with Karnofsky performance score varying at 90 and 50%; neo-adjuvant therapy; and adjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative BC. RESULTS: Participants would less often recommend breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy for an 84 versus a 76-year-old patient (56% versus 73%, p = 0.001). They would more often accept omission of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in older than in younger patients, if the patient wished to avoid this therapy (26% versus 4%, p < 0.001). All participants would propose systemic therapy for a high-recurrence risk patient with a good performance score, and 92% would still recommend therapy if the patient had a poor score (p < 0.001). Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy followed by breast-conserving surgery for a large tumour was recommended by 27% of the participants. Adjuvant chemotherapy for an otherwise healthy woman with triple-negative BC was considered by 83% of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age and performance status influenced specialists' treatment recommendations. The observed recommendations for the treatment scenarios under investigation differ from older women's actual treatment. This discrepancy highlights the need for studies specifically targeting older patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To quantify clinical trial participants' and investigators' judgments with respect to the relative importance of efficacy and safety attributes of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia, and to assess the impact of formulation and adherence. METHODS: Discrete-choice experiment surveys were completed by patients with schizophrenia and physician investigators participating in two phase-3 clinical trials of paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic. Respondents were asked to choose between hypothetical antipsychotic profiles defined by efficacy, safety, and mode of administration. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and probit models. RESULTS: Patients (N=214) and physicians (N=438) preferred complete improvement in positive symptoms (severe to none) as the most important attribute, compared with improvement in any other attribute studied. Both respondents preferred 3-month and 1-month injectables to oral formulation (P<0.05), irrespective of prior adherence to oral antipsychotic treatment, with physicians showing greater preference for a 3-month over a 1-month LAI for nonadherent patients. Physicians were willing to accept treatments with reduced efficacy for patients with prior poor adherence. The maximum decrease in efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI]) that physicians would accept for switching a patient from daily oral to 3-month injectable was as follows: adherent: 9.8% (95% CI: 7.2-12.4), 20% nonadherent: 25.4% (95% CI: 21.0-29.9), and 50% nonadherent: >30%. For patients, adherent: 10.1% (95% CI: 6.1-14.1), nonadherent: the change in efficacy studied was regarded as unimportant. CONCLUSION: Improvement in positive symptoms was the most important attribute. Patients and physicians preferred LAIs over oral antipsychotics, with physicians showing a greater preference for 3-month over 1-month LAI. Physicians and patients were willing to accept reduced efficacy in exchange for switching a patient from an oral formulation to a LAI.

RESUMEN

In the European Union, labels (Summaries of Product Characteristics, SmPCs) of biosimilars and their reference products are in many instances almost identical (following a generic approach) despite different data requirements for the authorization of biosimilars and generics. To understand physicians' preferences on type and detail of information in the biosimilar label and their use of information sources when prescribing biologics including biosimilars, EuropaBio surveyed 210 physicians across seven European countries. Among surveyed physicians, 90.5% use the label frequently or occasionally as an information source and 87.2% deemed a clear statement on the origin of data helpful or very helpful. When comparing excerpts from the label of an authorized biosimilar and modified texts with additional information, 78.1-82.9% preferred the samples with additional information. This survey shows that the label is an appropriate vehicle for providing physicians with information about biologics and that physicians prefer more product-specific information in the biosimilar label.

Asunto(s)