A new study exploring preferences in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment found that both patients and health care providers (HCPs) value innovation—including scientific advancement and the potential to live without ongoing treatment—nearly as much as clinical outcomes like progression-free survival (PFS).

In a discrete choice experiment survey of 200 patients and 30 HCPs in the US, respondents were presented with hypothetical MM treatments featuring 5 key attributes: PFS, chance of severe side effects, how patients live with treatments, scientific innovation, and monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) cost.

Overall, patients ranked PFS as the most important attribute (44.7% relative importance), followed by how they live with treatment (21.6%), scientific innovation (16.0%), cost (10.9%), and chance of severe side effects (6.8%). HCPs showed a similar trend, prioritizing PFS (30.6%), living with treatment (21.8%), and scientific innovation (19.4%).

Patients expressed strong preferences for treatments that offered a life without ongoing therapy, indicating a high burden from continuous MM treatment regimens. Treatments with scientific innovation—defined as first-in-class or those likely to lead to future therapeutic advances—were also significantly preferred by both patients and HCPs. From the patient perspective, this innovation was valued more highly than reductions in side effects or cost, unless OOP costs exceeded $1000 monthly.

“From both patient and HCP perspectives for another innovation attribute, ‘scientific innovation,’ the preference weight was significantly higher for a treatment with scientific innovation than for a treatment without scientific innovation,” the study authors noted.

The study revealed heterogeneity in patient preferences. A latent class analysis identified 2 distinct subgroups. One group—typically younger and more racially diverse—placed nearly equal weight across all 5 attributes. The other group, with older patients and more relapse experience, overwhelmingly prioritized PFS.

These findings suggest that shared decision-making in MM care must consider both clinical efficacy and the value patients place on quality-of-life improvements and scientific innovation. As treatment options expand, incorporating these preferences into clinical and formulary decision-making may improve patient satisfaction and adherence.

The authors conclude: “The potential for considering the value of innovation as an additional element in the value assessment of MM treatments needs to be examined further.”

Reference

Syeed S, Tan C J, Godara A, et al. Value of innovative multiple myeloma treatments from patient and healthcare provider perspectives: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics. 2025;(43):403–414. doi:10.1007/s40273-024-01459-8