Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37560147›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023

I-PreFer Study: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Patient, Caregiver and Pulmonologist Preferences of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Pharmacological Treatment Options.

Maria Hollmen, Marlies Wijsenbeek, Tom Bromilow, Adam B Smith, Stuart Mealing, Damian Lewis, Liam Galvin, Steve Jones, Guus Asijee, Stéphane Soulard and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Performance Characteristics for Physiological Measures of Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Observational
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Maria HollmenFaculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Marlies WijsenbeekCentre of Excellence for Interstitial Lung Diseases and Sarcoidosis, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Tom BromilowYork Health Economics Consortium (YHEC), York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2494-5685
Adam B SmithYork Health Economics Consortium (YHEC), York, UK.
Stuart MealingYork Health Economics Consortium (YHEC), York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2564-1440
Damian LewisYork Health Economics Consortium (YHEC), York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1803-0764
Liam GalvinEuropean Pulmonary Fibrosis & Related Disorders Federation, Overijse, Belgium.
Steve JonesEuropean Pulmonary Fibrosis & Related Disorders Federation, Overijse, Belgium.
Guus AsijeeBoehringer Ingelheim, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stéphane SoulardBoehringer Ingelheim, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Antoine FroidureService de Pneumologie, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive, and ultimately fatal lung disease that, while rare, has seen incidence rise over time. There is no cure for IPF other than a lung transplant, though two antifibrotic (AF) drugs do exist to slow disease progression. While these drugs are efficacious, they are both associated with differing profiles of adverse events. This study aimed to elicit patient, caregiver and pulmonologist preferences on the treatment profiles of AFs via a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Patients and Methods: The DCE and associated survey were distributed across 7 European countries, and bespoke DCEs were developed for patients/caregivers and pulmonologists. After collaboration with European Pulmonary Fibrosis & Related Disorders Federation (EU-PFF) and expert pulmonologists, respectively, a patient/caregiver DCE with 5 attributes and a pulmonologist DCE with 6 attributes were finalized. The DCEs had a blocked approach to reduce participant burden and were distributed on an online survey platform. Preferences were estimated through conditional multinomial logit regression analysis. Results: Ninety-five patients, 22 caregivers and 115 pulmonologists fully completed their respective DCEs. Overall, patients and caregivers preferred management of treatment-related adverse events over both survival benefits and disease progression. Nearly all preference levels were found to be significantly different from their reference level. In contrast, pulmonologists showed a greater preference for control of lung function and exacerbations over adverse events. Although there were relative differences between the univariate subgroups in terms of the preference weights, most of these were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The outcomes from this study suggest that while patients and caregivers had similar preferences for characteristics of IPF treatments, pulmonologists did not share those same preferences. Patients and caregivers preferred safety, while pulmonologists preferred efficacy. These differences should be considered by clinicians to better involve the patient in treatment decision-making for IPF.

Indexed as

lung diseaseonline surveyoutcomes researchtreatment preferences

Identifiers

PMID37560147
PMCPMC10408660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.