IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v18y2025i2d10.1007_s40271-024-00724-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Patient Preferences to Inform Clinical Trial Design: An Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Author

Listed:
  • Gillian R. Currie

    (University of Calgary)

  • Jan Storek

    (University of Calgary)

  • Karen V. MacDonald

    (University of Calgary)

  • Glen Hazlewood

    (University of Calgary)

  • Caylib Durand

    (University of Calgary)

  • John F. P. Bridges

    (The Ohio State University College of Medicine)

  • Dianne Mosher

    (University of Calgary)

  • Deborah A. Marshall

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

Background Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) may be a curative treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but it has serious risks, including death. It is uncertain whether patients would accept the risks and benefits of BMT and participate in clinical trials. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify risk tolerance and benefit–risk trade-offs to inform the design of a clinical trial for BMT. Methods We conducted a DCE with three attributes (three levels each): chance of stopping disease progression (50–90%), increased chance of death in year after transplant (3–15%), and chance of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) (3–15%). An orthogonal main effects design of nine binary choice tasks were presented for two scenarios: one considering their current situation and a second scenario where the patient has failed seven anti-rheumatic drugs. Participants were recruited from the Rheum4U inflammatory arthritis registry. Choice data were analyzed using a logit model accounting for multiple responses per participant. Results Sixty patients participated. Most (82%) had severe disease, and the median number of anti-rheumatic drugs previously taken was 6 (range 0–18). As expected, an increased chance of stopping disease progression increases the probability of choosing BMT, while increased chance of both risks decreases the probability. Patients were willing to accept a 3% increase in risk of death or 6% increase in chance of chronic GVHD for a 10% increase in the chance of stopping disease progression. For the most clinically likely BMT risk–benefit profiles, and the likely initial target population of patients who have failed multiple biologics, between 72% and 91% of patients would choose BMT. Conclusions Patients with RA are willing to accept substantial risks for a chance to stop disease progression with BMT, suggesting that a pilot trial of BMT for RA could successfully recruit patients. Preference studies have an important role in informing patient-centered clinical trial planning and design.

Suggested Citation

  • Gillian R. Currie & Jan Storek & Karen V. MacDonald & Glen Hazlewood & Caylib Durand & John F. P. Bridges & Dianne Mosher & Deborah A. Marshall, 2025. "Measuring Patient Preferences to Inform Clinical Trial Design: An Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(2), pages 161-171, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00724-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00724-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00724-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-024-00724-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00724-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.