4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02973321.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-019-00877-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research.

              In the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) field, strict regulatory requirements must be met for qualitative research that contributes to labeling claims for medicinal products. These requirements not only emphasize the importance of reaching saturation but also of providing documentary evidence that saturation has been reached. This paper reviews qualitative literature for useful definitions of the concept and for practical approaches for assessing saturation. The paper considers approaches in light of the rigorous regulatory requirements for PRO research that are used to support labeling claims for medicinal products and the wider requirements for flexibility and creativity in qualitative research in general. This assessment is facilitated by the use of examples from our past qualitative PRO studies. Based on conclusions from this assessment, we offer preliminary recommendations for future qualitative PRO studies for assessing and documenting saturation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Aude.Roborel-De-Climens@sanofi.com
                Journal
                Drug Saf
                Drug Saf
                Drug Safety
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0114-5916
                1179-1942
                2 November 2019
                2 November 2019
                2020
                : 43
                : 2
                : 119-134
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Adelphi Values, Adelphi Mill, Bollington, SK10 5JB Cheshire UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.476716.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0407 5050, Sanofi Aventis Group, ; One Onslow Street, Guildford, GU1 4YS Surrey UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.417924.d, Sanofi, ; 54-56 Rue la Boétie, 75008 Paris, France
                [4 ]Sanofi Aventis Research Development, 1 Avenue Pierre Brossolette, 91385 Chilly-Mazarin Cedex, France
                [5 ]Sanofi Aventis Group, 14 Espace Henry Vallée, 69007 Lyon, France
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5065-2010
                Article
                877
                10.1007/s40264-019-00877-4
                7007419
                31679129
                98fb9521-f097-437b-b208-621464b4ebfc
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004339, Sanofi;
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

                Comments

                Comment on this article