Heart failure patients' perspectives on treatment outcomes and unmet medical needs: A qualitative preference study

• DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.14891
• Publication Date: 2024-06-10T11:39:26Z
• Authors: Alice Vanneste; Liese Barbier; Ramses Missotten; Thomas Desmet; Walter Droogné; Sissel Michelsen; Peter Sinnaeve; Tom Adriaenssens; Isabelle Huys; Rosanne Janssens
• Keywords: Male; Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems; IMPACT; heart failure; patient‐centred decision‐making; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; patient‐based evidence; Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system; Humans; INTERVIEWS; patient preference study; Qualitative Research; Aged; Heart Failure; Health Services Needs and Demand; Science & Technology; OF-LIFE; Patient Preference; patient-based evidence; Middle Aged; patient-centred decision-making; PREVALENCE; Treatment Outcome; quality of life; MEDICINES; RC666-701; Cardiovascular System & Cardiology; Quality of Life; Original Article; Female; DATA SATURATION; SHARED DECISION-MAKING; BURDEN; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; qualitative research

Abstract Aims Decision‐makers still predominantly focus on the perspective of non‐patient stakeholders, which may deviate from unique heart failure (HF) patients. To enhance patient‐centred decision‐making, there is a need for more patient‐based evidence derived directly patients themselves. Hence, this study aimed to understand (i) HF patients' unmet medical needs and preferred treatment outcomes; (ii) risk tolerance; (iii) their information needs, uncertainties satisfaction towards treatment. Methods This qualitative patient preference consisted literature review with systematic search strategy semi‐structured interviews patients, analysed using framework method. During interviews, were asked rank predefined list disease treatment‐related characteristics informed by able spontaneously raise additional characteristics. Results The included 14 Belgian (age range: 58–79, mean age: 72). Regarding reported that most important shortness breath fatigue, as they negatively impact quality life (QoL) independence. In ranking exercise, prioritized improvements in QoL over expectancy, whereby following received highest cumulative score: (1) independence, (2) breath, (3) impaired renal function, (4) survival, (5) (6) hospitalization (7) communication between physicians. Patients often related general care process. Mechanism action, route administration, dose frequency weight fluctuations scored among least tolerance treatment, some expressed zero side effects, had not yet experienced any discomfort caused or disease. voiced desire receive practical comprehensible advice orally physician because highly value individualized decision‐making. also regarding whether effects due disease, ageing other comorbidities. Conclusions shows that, besides increasing prioritize symptoms reducing such fatigue. patient‐relevant identified study, themselves, be useful inform clinical trial endpoint selection guide downstream drug development, evaluation decision‐making addressing outcomes importance