Differences in Preferences for Drug Therapy Between Patients with Metastatic Versus Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1007/s40271-024-00679-6
Lilly Sophia Brandstetter, Steffi Jírů-Hillmann, Stefan Störk, Peter Ulrich Heuschmann, Achim Wöckel, Jens-Peter Reese
{"title":"Differences in Preferences for Drug Therapy Between Patients with Metastatic Versus Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Lilly Sophia Brandstetter, Steffi Jírů-Hillmann, Stefan Störk, Peter Ulrich Heuschmann, Achim Wöckel, Jens-Peter Reese","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00679-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compared with early stages (eBC) metastatic BC (mBC) is incurable. In mBC, aggressive treatment may increase the duration of survival but may also cause severe treatment side effects. A better understanding how patients with BC value different aspects of drug therapy might improve treatment effectiveness, satisfaction and adherence. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise studies evaluating patient preferences for drug therapy of BC and to compare preferences of patients with eBC and mBC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched on 22 June 2023. All studies published to this point were considered. Original studies reporting patient preferences on BC drug therapy determined by any type of choice experiment were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the effect measures presented as relative importance ratings, trade-offs (required benefit to make a therapy worthwhile) or monetary values of the treatment attributes was reported for each study. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies was performed using the checklist for observational studies from the STROBE Statement and the checklist from 'Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User's Guide'. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42022377031).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis evaluating the preferences of patients with eBC (n = 18), mBC (n = 10) or any stage BC (n = 6) on, for example, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, hormonal therapy or CKD4/6-inhibitors using different types of choice experiments. Regardless of the stage, most patients valued treatment effectiveness in terms of survival gains higher than potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Treatment cost, mode of administration, treatment regimen and monitoring aspects were considered as least important treatment attributes. In addition, preferences concerning 16 different types of ADRs were described, showing high heterogeneity within BC stages. Yet, comparable results across BC stages were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of the stage, patients with BC consistently valued survival gains as the most important attribute and were willing to accept the risk of potential ADRs. Incorporating patient preferences in shared decision making may improve the effectiveness of interventions by enhancing adherence to drug therapy in patients suffering from BC.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11190003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00679-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Compared with early stages (eBC) metastatic BC (mBC) is incurable. In mBC, aggressive treatment may increase the duration of survival but may also cause severe treatment side effects. A better understanding how patients with BC value different aspects of drug therapy might improve treatment effectiveness, satisfaction and adherence. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise studies evaluating patient preferences for drug therapy of BC and to compare preferences of patients with eBC and mBC.

Methods: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched on 22 June 2023. All studies published to this point were considered. Original studies reporting patient preferences on BC drug therapy determined by any type of choice experiment were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the effect measures presented as relative importance ratings, trade-offs (required benefit to make a therapy worthwhile) or monetary values of the treatment attributes was reported for each study. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies was performed using the checklist for observational studies from the STROBE Statement and the checklist from 'Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User's Guide'. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42022377031).

Results: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis evaluating the preferences of patients with eBC (n = 18), mBC (n = 10) or any stage BC (n = 6) on, for example, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, hormonal therapy or CKD4/6-inhibitors using different types of choice experiments. Regardless of the stage, most patients valued treatment effectiveness in terms of survival gains higher than potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Treatment cost, mode of administration, treatment regimen and monitoring aspects were considered as least important treatment attributes. In addition, preferences concerning 16 different types of ADRs were described, showing high heterogeneity within BC stages. Yet, comparable results across BC stages were observed.

Conclusions: Regardless of the stage, patients with BC consistently valued survival gains as the most important attribute and were willing to accept the risk of potential ADRs. Incorporating patient preferences in shared decision making may improve the effectiveness of interventions by enhancing adherence to drug therapy in patients suffering from BC.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
转移性乳腺癌患者与早期乳腺癌患者在药物治疗偏好上的差异:系统性文献综述。
简介与早期(eBC)相比,转移性乳腺癌(mBC)是无法治愈的。对于 mBC,积极治疗可延长患者的生存期,但也可能导致严重的治疗副作用。更好地了解 BC 患者如何看待药物治疗的不同方面可能会提高治疗效果、满意度和依从性。本系统性综述旨在识别和总结评估 BC 患者对药物治疗偏好的研究,并比较 eBC 和 mBC 患者的偏好:本系统综述遵循系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。在 2023 年 6 月 22 日对电子数据库 PubMed 和 Web of Science 进行了检索。在此之前发表的所有研究均在考虑之列。通过任何类型的选择实验确定患者对 BC 药物治疗偏好的原创性研究均符合条件。每项研究均以相对重要性评级、权衡(使治疗物有所值的所需益处)或治疗属性的货币价值等形式对效果衡量标准进行了叙述性综合报告。个别研究的偏倚风险评估采用 STROBE 声明中的观察性研究核对表和《开展离散选择实验为医疗决策提供信息》中的核对表进行:用户指南》中的清单进行。研究方案已在 PROSPERO 数据库(CRD42022377031)中注册:共有 34 项符合纳入标准的研究被纳入分析,这些研究采用不同类型的选择实验,评估了 eBC(18 例)、mBC(10 例)或任何阶段 BC(6 例)患者对化疗、内分泌治疗、激素治疗或 CKD4/6 抑制剂等的偏好。无论处于哪个阶段,大多数患者对治疗效果的评价都是生存率的提高高于潜在的药物不良反应(ADRs)。治疗费用、给药方式、治疗方案和监测方面被认为是最不重要的治疗属性。此外,研究还描述了患者对 16 种不同类型药物不良反应的偏好,显示出 BC 分期内的高度异质性。然而,在 BC 的不同阶段也观察到了相似的结果:结论:无论处于哪个阶段,BC 患者都将生存率作为最重要的属性,并愿意接受潜在的不良反应风险。将患者的偏好纳入共同决策过程中,可以提高 BC 患者坚持药物治疗的积极性,从而提高干预措施的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
期刊最新文献
Validity and Responsiveness of EQ-5D in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Appropriateness of the EQ-HWB for Use in Residential Aged Care: A Proxy Perspective. Eliciting Older Cancer Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up Care to Inform a Primary Healthcare Follow-Up Model in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Treatment Preference Research in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1