Engagement of Canadian Patients with Rare Diseases and Their Families in the Lifecycle of Therapy: A Qualitative Study

How do patients and other members of the public engage with the orphan drug development? A narrative qualitative synthesis

BACKGROUND

The diversity of patient experiences of orphan drug development has until recently been overlooked, with the existing literature reporting the experience of some patients and not others. The current evidence base (the best available current research) is dominated by quantitative surveys and patient reported outcome measures defined by researchers. Where research that uses qualitative methods of data collection and analysis has been conducted, patient experiences have been studied using content analysis and automatic textual analysis, rather than in-depth qualitative analytical methods. Systematic reviews of patient engagement in orphan drug development have also excluded qualitative studies. The aim of this paper is to review qualitative literature about how patients and other members of the public engage with orphan drug development.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of qualitative papers describing a range of patient engagement practices and experiences were identified and screened. Included papers were appraised using a validated tool (CASP), supplemented by reporting guidance (COREQ), by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

262 papers were identified. Thirteen papers reported a range of methods of qualitative data collection. Many conflated patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with qualitative research. Patients were typically recruited via their physician or patient organisations. We identified an absence of overarching philosophical or methodological frameworks, limited details of informed consent processes, and an absence of recognisable methods of data analysis. Our narrative synthesis suggests that patients and caregivers need to be involved in all aspects of trial design, including the selection of clinical endpoints that capture a wider range of outcomes, the identification of means to widen access to trial participation, the development of patient facing materials to optimise their decision making, and patients included in the dissemination of trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative qualitative synthesis identified the explicit need for methodological rigour in research with patients with rare diseases (e.g. appropriate and innovative use of qualitative methods or PPIE, rather than their conflation); strenuous efforts to capture the perspectives of under-served, under-researched or seldom listened to communities with experience of rare diseases (e.g. creative recruitment and wider adoption of post-colonial practices); and a re-alignment of the research agenda (e.g. the use of co-design to enable patients to set the agenda, rather than respond to what they are being offered).

Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes

Objectives

The terminology used to describe community participation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is contested and frequently confusing. The terms patients, consumers, public, lay members, customers, users, citizens, and others have been variously used, sometimes interchangeably. Clarity in the use of terms and goals for including the different groups is needed to mitigate existing inconsistencies in the application of patient and public involvement (PPI) across HTA processes around the world.

Methods

We drew from a range of literature sources in order to conceptualize (i) an operational definition for the “public” and other stakeholders in the context of HTA and (ii) possible goals for their involvement. Draft definitions were tested and refined in an iterative consensus-building process with stakeholders from around the world.

Results

The goals, terminology, interests, and roles for PPI in HTA processes were clarified. The research provides rationales for why the role of the public should be distinguished from that of patients, their families, and caregivers. A definition for the public in the context of HTA was developed: A community member who holds the public interest and has no commercial, personal, or professional interest in the HTA process

Conclusions

There are two distinct aspects to the interests held by the public which should be explicitly included in the HTA process: the first lies in ensuring democratic accountability and the second in recognising the importance of including public values in decision making.

Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development

Patients and caregivers are increasingly recognized as key stakeholders in developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Online engagement approaches offer the promise of a rigorous, scalable, and convenient engagement method. This paper illustrates how an online modified-Delphi approach could be used to engage patients, caregivers, and other stakeholder in CPG development. It provides practical guidance for conducting online modified-Delphi panels that covers (1) joint development of the engagement approach with relevant stakeholders, (2) adaptation of methods used by experts in guideline development, (3) pilot testing, (4) participant recruitment, (5) determining panel size and composition, (6) building participant capacity, (7) facilitation of two-way interaction, (8) continuous engagement and retention of participants, (9) rigorous data analysis, (10) evaluation of engagement activities, and (11) result dissemination. The paper is based on a recently completed study about engaging individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and their caregivers in determining the patient-centeredness of DMD care guidelines.

Patient Involvement in the Lifecycle of Medicines According to Belgian Stakeholders: The Gap Between Theory and Practice

Background: Patient involvement is often acknowledged as an important aspect of the lifecycle of medicines. Although different typologies exist, patient involvement has been described as the involvement of patients in decision-making regarding medicines. In view of the diversity of stakeholders and types of decisions in which patients might be involved, an in-depth understanding of these stakeholders' views toward involving patients in the lifecycle of medicines is essential. Methods: Interviews and surveys were used to gain insights into the perspectives and experiences of Belgian healthcare stakeholders. Interviews (n = 22) were conducted with academics, hospital pharmacists and representatives from health insurance funds, the Belgian reimbursement agency, pharmaceutical industry and patient organizations. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. Surveys (n = 108) were completed by hospital visitors and analyzed descriptively. Results: Despite an increasing amount of efforts to involve patients, interviewees labeled the level of actively involving patients as rather low and scattered across the different phases of the lifecycle of medicines. The main opportunities for patient involvement highlighted by interviewees were for: (i) informing early development decisions on which treatments to develop, (ii) clinical trial endpoint selection and (iii) clinical trial protocol design. However, remaining questions surrounding patient knowledge, and particularly how and which patients to involve represent important barriers toward implementing patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines. Of survey participants, 77% indicated to be willing to participate in patient preference studies. Reasons for participating mentioned most frequently were "to improve development of treatments," because "it is important to explore and listen to patient preferences" and "to have a voice as patients". Conclusions: The barriers identified in this study hamper transitioning patient involvement from theory to practice. Bridging this gap requires addressing the identified barriers and unresolved questions surrounding the right methodology for involving patients, the "right patients" to involve and means to increase patient knowledge. In order to do so, further research should focus on assessing the value of methods that allow to indirectly capture patients' perspective both in the context of development as well as in the context of evaluation.

A checklist for managed access programmes for reimbursement co-designed by Canadian patients and caregivers

INTRODUCTION

Reimbursement decisions on orphan drugs carry significant uncertainty, and as the amount increases, so does the risk of making a wrong decision, where harms outweigh benefits. Consequently, patients often face limited access to orphan drugs. Managed access programmes (MAPs) are a mechanism for managing risk while enabling access to potentially beneficial drugs. Patients and their caregivers have expressed support for these programmes and see patient input as critical to successful implementation. However, they have yet to be systematically involved in their design.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to co-design with patients and caregivers a tool for the development of managed access programmes.

METHODS

Building upon established relationships with the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, the project team collaborated with patients and caregivers using the principles of participatory action research. Data were collected at two workshops and analysed using a thematic network approach.

RESULTS

Patients and caregivers co-designed a checklist comprised of six aspects of an ideal MAP relating to accountability (programme goals); governance (MAP-specific committee oversight, patient input, international collaboration); and evidence collection (outcome measures and continuation criteria, on-going monitoring and registries). They recognized that health-care resources are finite and considered disease or drug eligibility criteria for deciding when to use a MAP (eg drugs treating diseases for which there are no other legitimate alternatives).

CONCLUSIONS

A patient and caregiver-designed checklist was created, which emphasized patient involvement and transparency. Further research is needed to examine the feasibility of this checklist and roles for other stakeholders.