Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) profoundly affects quality of life due to frequent surgeries. Although emerging non‐surgical options such as bevacizumab and HPV‐specific immunotherapies show promise, little is known about patient interest or treatment decision‐making. This study explored RRP patients' treatment preferences using a stated‐preference framework to guide patient‐centered therapy development. Methods A two‐part approach was used. First, semi‐structured interviews ( n = 10) with randomly selected RRP patients identified key treatment priorities. The three most frequently cited attributes were incorporated into a discrete‐choice experiment (DCE) distributed to RRP patients with standardized educational materials on bevacizumab and HPV‐specific immunotherapies. Participants completed choice tasks and indicated their preferred treatment. Preferences and attribute importance were estimated using hierarchical Bayes modeling. Results Interview participants most often prioritized likelihood of needing future surgery, frequency of non‐surgical treatment, and side effects. Sixty‐six quality‐controlled DCE responses were analyzed. All attributes significantly influenced treatment choice ( p < 0.001) and followed logical, monotonic utility patterns. Side effects were most influential (55.1%), followed by likelihood of future surgery (36.5%) and treatment frequency (8.4%). Overall, patients preferred HPV‐specific immunotherapy (48%) or bevacizumab (44%) over awake or asleep surgery (8%). Conclusion This is the first quantitative study of RRP patient treatment priorities. We found that patients overwhelmingly value therapies that reduce surgical burden and side effects, highlighting a critical unmet need in current management. These findings capture the patient perspective and establish a foundation for aligning future research and clinical efforts with what matters most to those living with RRP. Level of Evidence N/A.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marshall et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: