Assessing Preferences for Rare Disease Treatment: Qualitative Development of the Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Patient Preference Questionnaire (PNH-PPQ©)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karen Kaiser,1 Susan E Yount,1 Christa E Martens,1 Kimberly A Webster,1 Sara Shaunfield,1 Amy Sparling,1 John Devin Peipert,1 David Cella,1 Scott T Rottinghaus,2 Bonnie MK Donato,2 Richard Wells,3 Ioannis Tomazos2 1Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; 2Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Boston, MA, USA; 3Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Karen KaiserDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60611, USATel +1 312-503-3521Fax +1 312-503-4800Email k-kaiser@northwestern.eduPurpose: To develop a patient preference questionnaire (PPQ) assessing eculizumab and ravulizumab treatment for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).Patients and Methods: The development of the PNH-PPQ© was consistent with Food and Drug Administration guidelines for patient-reported outcome measure development, and included 1) a targeted literature review; 2) PNH expert clinician input on treatment preferences; 3) review of existing qualitative data on the PNH treatment and disease experience; 4) concept elicitation interviews with 8 PNH patients who received eculizumab and/or ravulizumab; 5) translatability review; and 6) cognitive debriefing with 5 patients. Interview participants were recruited through a United Kingdom PNH patient advocacy group and a Canadian clinical site involved in clinical trial ALXN1210-PNH-302.Results: Six themes were identified as most relevant to the PNH treatment experience from the concept elicitation interviews: disease symptoms (n=8/8); treatment frequency (n=7/8); quality of life impact of treatment/disease (n=7/8); treatment burden (n=7/8); treatment efficacy (n=5/8); and treatment side effects (n=5/8). An initial list of 88 preference questions was reduced to 11 highly relevant and non-redundant questions reflecting the 6 themes. Cognitive interview participants unanimously agreed that the PNH-PPQ instructions were clear; response options were understandable, easy to use, and provided enough choices; and the questions captured the factors that inform treatment preferences.Discussion: When new drugs have similar efficacy to existing medications, documenting patient preferences is important for confirming patient benefit from the new medication. Understanding what matters most to patients is essential for delivering patient-centered care and may play a particularly significant role in treatment decision making. The availability of such a tool may be especially important as new orphan drugs are developed and patients with rare diseases have more than one treatment option to consider.Conclusion: The PNH-PPQ provides a patient-centered approach for evaluating preferences for the treatment of PNH. The PNH-PPQ has subsequently assessed patient preference in the clinical trial sub-study ALXN1210-PNH-302s.Keywords: paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, questionnaire development, ravulizumab, eculizumab, treatment experience
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".