Abstract

Objectives

To rank the US payers’ preferences for attributes of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in the context of chronic disease and to quantify trade-offs among them.

Methods

We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 180 employees from payer organizations were tasked to choose between 2 RWE studies assuming they were assessing evidence to inform formulary decisions for chronic disease treatment. Each RWE study was characterized by 7 attributes with 3 levels each: very informative, moderately informative, and not measured. We used a D-optimal main-effects design. Survey data were fitted to a conditional logit model to obtain a relative measure of the ranking of importance for each attribute.

Results

Clinical outcomes were the most preferred attribute. It was 4.68 times as important as productivity outcomes—the least preferred attribute. It was followed by health-related quality of life (2.78), methodologic rigor (2.09), resource utilization (1.71), and external validity (1.56).

Conclusions

This study provides a quantification of the value payers place on key RWE attributes. Across attributes, payers have higher preferences for clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes than the other attributes. Between attributes’ levels, payers prefer high levels of information in clinical outcomes and methodologic rigor but are indifferent in other attributes. Our results bridge the gap between the information that payers seek and the attributes that RWE studies prioritize and effectively guide future research design.