Patient Perceptions Regarding Multiple Myeloma and Its Treatment: Qualitative Evidence from Interviews with Patients in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany

Overview

Journal Patient

Specialty Health Services

Date 2021 Mar 9

PMID 33686594

Citations 8

Authors

Jianming He

Ashley Duenas

Hannah Collacott

Annette Lam

Katharine S Gries

Robin Carson

Dietrich Potthoff

Nicola Trevor

Tommi Tervonen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The current standard of care for multiple myeloma requires several regimens of treatment, with patients experiencing high symptom burden and side effects, which negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Thus, it is crucial to understand patient perceptions of multiple myeloma and how patients value different treatment options.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory investigation into concepts that could form attributes that influence treatment choices for patients with multiple myeloma and to identify trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment attributes.

Methods: In total, 30 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma from the UK, France, and Germany participated in semistructured interviews talking about their disease experience and symptoms, treatment benefits, treatment burden, perceived side effects, and benefit/risk trade-offs in treatment. The interview audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis to identify treatment and disease aspects relevant to patients.

Results: Symptoms of fatigue and bone pain and treatment side effects of peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and constipation were cited by patients as the most disruptive to their HRQoL. Treatment duration was reported most frequently as a major treatment burden, and patients emphasized the importance of increased life expectancy as a treatment benefit. All patients showed good understanding of benefit/risk trade-offs in treatment, and some patients expressed a preference for more convenient modes of treatment administration.

Conclusions: Qualitative interviews identified key aspects of multiple myeloma treatment that are most important to patients. These findings will inform a wider patient-preferences study, which could improve treatment choice and HRQoL for patients with multiple myeloma.

Citing Articles

Unravelling Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-World Practice in Spain: The CARINAE Study.

de Arriba de la Fuente F, Gironella Mesa M, Hernandez Garcia M, Soler Campos J, Herraez Rodriguez S, Moreno Belmonte M Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2024; 17(10).

PMID: 39458913 PMC: 11510635. DOI: 10.3390/ph17101272.

Patient perspectives on BCMA-targeted therapies for multiple myeloma: a survey conducted in a patient advocacy group.

Hydren J, Lin D, Sweeney N, Wu B, Kim N, Patel S Front Health Serv. 2024; 4:1354760.

PMID: 38721434 PMC: 11078150. DOI: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1354760.

Practical management of disease-related manifestations and drug toxicities in patients with multiple myeloma.

Geraldes C, Roque A, Sarmento-Ribeiro A, Neves M, Ionita A, Gerivaz R Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1282300.

PMID: 38585008 PMC: 10995327. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1282300.

Treatment preferences of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Thomas C, Ailawadhi S, Popat R, Kleinman D, Ross M, Gorsh B Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1271657.

PMID: 38076274 PMC: 10702501. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1271657.

Patient perspectives on considerations, tradeoffs, and experiences with multiple myeloma treatment selection: a qualitative descriptive study.

Dombeck C, Swezey T, Gonzalez Sepulveda J, Reeve B, LeBlanc T, Chandler D BMC Cancer. 2023; 23(1):65.

PMID: 36658490 PMC: 9850680. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10458-x.

References

Baz R, Lin H, Hui A, Harvey R, Colson K, Gallop K . Development of a conceptual model to illustrate the impact of multiple myeloma and its treatment on health-related quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 2015; 23(9):2789-97. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2644-6. View

Parsons J, Greenspan N, Baker N, McKillop C, Hicks L, Chan O . Treatment preferences of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer. 2019; 19(1):264. PMC: 6434792. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5467-x. View

Seitzler S, Finley-Oliver E, Simonelli C, Baz R . Quality of life in multiple myeloma: considerations and recommendations. Expert Rev Hematol. 2019; 12(6):419-424. DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2019.1613886. View

Osborne T, Ramsenthaler C, Siegert R, Edmonds P, Schey S, Higginson I . What issues matter most to people with multiple myeloma and how well are we measuring them? A systematic review of quality of life tools. Eur J Haematol. 2012; 89(6):437-57. DOI: 10.1111/ejh.12012. View

Robinson Jr D, Esseltine D, Regnault A, Meunier J, Liu K, van de Velde H . The influence of baseline characteristics and disease stage on health-related quality of life in multiple myeloma: findings from six randomized controlled trials. Br J Haematol. 2016; 174(3):368-81. PMC: 5089628. DOI: 10.1111/bjh.14058. View

Richardson P, Schlossman R, Roy A, Panneerselvam A, Acharyya S, Sopala M . Patient-reported outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with panobinostat after ≥2 lines of therapy based on the international phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PANORAMA-1 trial. Br J Haematol. 2018; 181(5):628-636. DOI: 10.1111/bjh.15248. View

Jansen L, Merz M, Engelhardt M, Weisel K, Scheid C, Straka C . Autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients: utilization patterns and hospital effects. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020; 61(10):2365-2374. DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1768383. View

Nielsen L, Stege C, Lissenberg-Witte B, van der Holt B, Mellqvist U, Salomo M . Health-related quality of life in transplant ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with either thalidomide or lenalidomide-based regimen until progression: a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study. Haematologica. 2019; 105(6):1650-1659. PMC: 7271593. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2019.222299. View

Postmus D, Richard S, Bere N, van Valkenhoef G, Galinsky J, Low E . Individual Trade-Offs Between Possible Benefits and Risks of Cancer Treatments: Results from a Stated Preference Study with Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Oncologist. 2017; 23(1):44-51. PMC: 5759823. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0257. View

10.

Gulbrandsen N, Hjermstad M, Wisloff F . Interpretation of quality of life scores in multiple myeloma by comparison with a reference population and assessment of the clinical importance of score differences. Eur J Haematol. 2004; 72(3):172-80. DOI: 10.1046/j.0902-4441.2003.00195.x. View

11.

Rifkin R, Bell J, DasMahapatra P, Hoole M, Lowe M, Curran C . Treatment Satisfaction and Burden of Illness in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma. Pharmacoecon Open. 2019; 4(3):473-483. PMC: 7426337. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-00184-9. View

12.

Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege H, Salmonson T, Ryll B, Plate A . Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: Results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 99(5):548-54. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.332. View

13.

de Bekker-Grob E, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, Christoforidi K, Cleemput I . Giving Patients' Preferences a Voice in Medical Treatment Life Cycle: The PREFER Public-Private Project. Patient. 2017; 10(3):263-266. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0222-3. View

14.

Reed Johnson F, Zhou M . Patient Preferences in Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessments: A US Perspective. Value Health. 2016; 19(6):741-745. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.008. View

15.

Muhlbacher A, Bridges J, Bethge S, Dintsios C, Schwalm A, Gerber-Grote A . Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2016; 18(2):155-165. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-016-0763-8. View

16.

Francis J, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles M . What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010; 25(10):1229-45. DOI: 10.1080/08870440903194015. View

17.

Hollin I, Craig B, Coast J, Beusterien K, Vass C, DiSantostefano R . Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers. Patient. 2019; 13(1):121-136. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00401-x. View

18.

Turner-Bowker D, Lamoureux R, Stokes J, Litcher-Kelly L, Galipeau N, Yaworsky A . Informing a priori Sample Size Estimation in Qualitative Concept Elicitation Interview Studies for Clinical Outcome Assessment Instrument Development. Value Health. 2018; 21(7):839-842. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.014. View

19.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349-57. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. View

20.

Wilke T, Mueller S, Bauer S, Pitura S, Probst L, Ratsch B . Treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: which new PI-based combination treatments do patients prefer?. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018; 12:2387-2396. PMC: 6235009. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S183187. View