Development and First Use of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) Questionnaire in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus to Explore Individualised Benefit-Harm of Drugs Received During Clinical Studies

被引:8
作者
Gater, Adam [1 ]
Reaney, Matthew [2 ]
Findley, Amy [1 ]
Brun-Strang, Catherine [3 ]
Burrows, Kate [1 ]
Nguyen-Pascal, My-Lien [4 ]
de Climens, Aude Roborel [5 ]
机构
[1] Adelphi Mill, Adelphi Values, Bollington SK10 5JB, Cheshire, England
[2] Sanofi Aventis Grp, One Onslow St, Guildford GU1 4YS, Surrey, England
[3] Sanofi, 54-56 Rue Boetie, F-75008 Paris, France
[4] Sanofi Aventis Res Dev, 1 Ave Pierre Brossolette, F-91385 Chilly Mazarin, France
[5] Sanofi Aventis Grp, 14 Espace Henry Vallee, F-69007 Lyon, France
关键词
REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; DATA SATURATION; MEDICINE;
D O I
10.1007/s40264-019-00877-4
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Introduction Individualised benefit-harm assessments can help identify patient-perceived benefits and harms of a treatment, and associated trade-offs that may influence patients' willingness to use a treatment. This research presents the first use of a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of drugs received during clinical studies. Methods The Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) was developed in English and cognitively tested with US (n = 4) and Canadian (n = 3) patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The revised version of the PQAT comprises three qualitative open-ended questions focused on the benefits and disadvantages of treatment and reasons why patients would choose to continue/discontinue treatment. A final quantitative question asks patients to evaluate the balance between benefits and disadvantages using a 7-point scale. The revised version of the questionnaire was administered as an exploratory endpoint in a phase II clinical trial for a new injectable treatment for T2DM. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, and relationships between qualitative and quantitative data were identified. Results Patient-reported benefits of treatment administered during the clinical trial included clinical markers of efficacy and subjective markers. Disadvantages reported by patients were mainly related to drug adverse effects or to the mode of administration. Of the 57 patients completing the PQAT, 70.2% reported being willing to continue treatment, with 59.6% reporting that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. The reported benefits of feeling better and improved energy levels were more likely to be associated with a more positive ratio (70% and 71.4%, respectively), while the disadvantages of fatigue, headaches, and stomach pain were associated with a negative ratio and patients not being willing to continue the treatment. Conclusions The PQAT is a unique patient-reported outcome tool designed to aid understanding patients' real experience of benefits and disadvantages of a treatment. It combines the richness of qualitative data with quantitative data-information valuable for various stakeholders to make well-informed treatment decisions.
引用
收藏
页码:119 / 134
页数:16
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   Initial injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes: Key considerations when choosing between glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and insulin [J].
Alexopoulos, Anastasia-Stefania ;
Buse, John B. .
METABOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL, 2019, 98 :104-111
[2]   A response to the Chief Medical Officer's report on Genomic Medicine: a catalyst for transformation [J].
Barwell, Julian ;
Shaw, Jacqui ;
Lim, Ming ;
Shukla, Riddhi Y. ;
Lowry, Joanna .
PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2018, 15 (01) :5-8
[3]   Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: An exploratory analysis of CADTH common drug review [J].
Berglas S. ;
Jutai L. ;
Mackean G. ;
Weeks L. .
Research Involvement and Engagement, 2 (1)
[4]  
Braun V., 2006, QUAL RES PSYCHOL, V3, P77, DOI [DOI 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA, 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
[5]  
CIOMS Working Group IV, BEN RISK BAL MARK DR
[6]  
COULTER A, 2017, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V356, DOI DOI 10.1136/BMJ.J816
[7]  
European Medicines Agency, 2009, INF BEN RISK MED PAT
[8]  
European Network for Health Technology Assessment, 2016, EUNETHTA JA2 WP8 DEL
[9]  
Filippatos Theodosios D, 2014, Rev Diabet Stud, V11, P202, DOI 10.1900/RDS.2014.11.202
[10]  
Food and Drug Administration, PAT FOC DRUG DEV GUI