Abstract Introduction: CLL disease control and survival outcomes have improved since the introduction of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis). Since CLL often requires treatments, understanding patient preferences is critical in optimizing adherence and overall satisfaction. However, there are limited published data on how Korean patients prioritize treatment efficacy, safety and the convenience of administration. To address this gap, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology was applied in a comprehensive quantitative analysis to evaluate patient preferences for BTKi treatment attributes among patients with CLL in Korea. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a confirmed diagnosis of CLL in Korea were recruited by The Korea Blood Disease safety attributes included impacts of adverse events (AEs), including diarrhea, headache, atrial fibrillation and hypertension, on quality of life (QoL); convenience attributes included formulation type (including tablet or capsule) and dosing frequency (including once daily or twice daily). Preference data was analyzed using a conditional logistic regression. Relative importance of BTKi treatment attributes were calculated to measure the importance of each attribute in treatment decision-making. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted among patients aged 60 years and ≥60 years, those who received 2 or more lines (2L+) of treatments, and those who experienced AEs from CLL treatment. Results: A total of 57 patients completed the survey. The mean age was 61 years, with 46% aged 60 years and 54% aged ≥60 years. Female patients comprise 35% of the sample. Around 33% had a high school education or less, and 23% were employed full-time. More than half (54%) reported no comorbid conditions, and 70% were diagnosed ≥5 years ago (26% diagnosed 1 to 5 years ago; 4% diagnosed less than a year ago). In terms of treatment experience, 11% were treatment naive, while 89% received ≥1 treatment (61% first-line, 21% second-line and 7% third-line or later). In the context of CLL treatment preferences, patients showed a significant preference (P .05) for therapies that minimized the impact of AEs on QoL, offered longer PFS, and required less frequent dosing. Formulation type did not have a statistically significant impact on treatment choice. Overall, patients placed greater importance on how treatment-related attributes affect their QoL and dosing frequency. The highest-ranked factors were the impact of headache (22%) and diarrhea (21%) on QoL, followed by dosing frequency (19%), the impact of atrial fibrillation (16%) and hypertension (14%) on QoL, PFS (7%), and formulation type (0.6%). Results from the subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the full sample analysis, with impacts of AEs on QoL being the most important factors for treatment decision-making, especially among older patients, although the relative ranking of impacts of AEs varied by age groups and treatment experience. Regarding efficacy, younger patients (60 years of age) valued PFS slightly more than older patients (≥60 years of age), ranking it 4th and 6th out of the 10 attributes, respectively. Additionally, preference on dosing frequency was more important for 2L+ patients, reflecting the treatment burden experienced from previous regimens. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the treatment preferences of Korean patients with CLL, highlighting the importance of QoL considerations for treatment decision-making. Among the evaluated attributes, patients placed the greatest weight on minimizing the impacts of AEs, particularly headache and diarrhea, on daily functioning, followed by dosing frequency. These preferences underscore the need for patient-centered care that prioritizes not only clinical efficacy but also tolerability and convenience. These insights can inform shared decision-making and support the development of personalized treatment strategies that better align with patient needs and expectations in Korea.
Lee et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: