IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v43y2020i2d10.1007_s40264-019-00877-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Gater

    (Adelphi Values)

  • Matthew Reaney

    (Sanofi Aventis Group)

  • Amy Findley

    (Adelphi Values)

  • Catherine Brun-Strang

    (Sanofi)

  • Kate Burrows

    (Adelphi Values)

  • My-Liên Nguyên-Pascal

    (Sanofi Aventis Research Development)

  • Aude Roborel de Climens

    (Sanofi Aventis Group)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Gater & Matthew Reaney & Amy Findley & Catherine Brun-Strang & Kate Burrows & My-Liên Nguyên-Pascal & Aude Roborel de Climens, 2020. "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," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 119-134, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:43:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s40264-019-00877-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-019-00877-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-019-00877-4
    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/s40264-019-00877-4?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew Reaney & Jennifer Cline & James C. Wilson & Michael Posey, 2021. "Generating Relevant Information from Patients in the Technology-Enhanced Era of Patient-Focused Drug Development: Opportunities and Challenges," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 11-16, January.
    2. Renly Lim & Lisa Kalisch Ellett & Elizabeth E. Roughead & Phaik Yeong Cheah & Nashwa Masnoon, 2021. "Patient-Reported Questionnaires to Identify Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Daniel Eek & Katarina Halling & Emuella Flood & Matthew Blowfield & Oren Meyers & Meredith Venerus & Jean Paty & Richard Hermann, 2021. "Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 44(10), pages 1059-1072, October.

    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:drugsa:v:43:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s40264-019-00877-4. 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/economics/journal/40264 .

    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.