Chasing cures: Rewards and risks for rare disease patient organisations involved in research

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care and daily life of patients with rare diseases from the perspective of patient organizations - a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic people affected by rare diseases (RD) or caregiver of affected children have faced additional challenges. The pandemic has affected physical and mental health, social life and has led to financial consequences. Our objectives were to identify the impact of COVID-19 (1) on health care and (2) on daily life and participation of patients with RDs or caregivers from the perspective of representatives of patient organizations. Moreover, we explored their perspective on experiences of pandemic stress and resources during the pandemic.

RESULTS

We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with representatives of patient organizations (e.g. chairperson, members of the steering committee), who were asked about the experiences of their members. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the framework approach. We contextualized our findings on the basis of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model and adapted it according to identified subthemes. Patients and caregivers were confronted with aspects of pandemic stress such as lack of information, access and information regarding vaccination and being a risk group for COVID-19 infection. Physical and mental functioning was reported to be negatively impacted. Lock downs and contact restrictions led, e.g., to increasing lack of nursing services or lack of necessary informal support. Participation e.g. in social life and work was reduced. Health care services including medical care and supportive care as well as additional therapies were disrupted and greater effort was necessary to organize care. According to participants, central resources were informal support networks, digitalization, patient organizations and individual characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the situation of people affected by RDs and caregivers. Contextualization of the results into the biopsychosocial model reinforces the impact of the pandemic on health care as well as daily life and participation. Major challenges and difficulties were experienced during lockdowns and contact restrictions. Depending on the risk of an infection with COVID-19, certain patient groups were still isolated and reduced social contacts or still followed strict hygienic measures (e.g., wearing medical masks). Future pandemic control measures, e.g. on lockdowns and closing facilities, should consider the challenges of people with RDs and caregivers of affected children.

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).

The challenge of institutionalised complicity: Researching the pharmaceutical industry in the era of impact and engagement

The pharmaceutical industry plays a central role in the production of the drugs we use to treat most illnesses. It is immensely powerful and has received sustained attention from sociologists of health and illness, who have provided a critique of its influence and sometimes unethical behaviour. However, in recent years, funders are increasingly expecting researchers to engage and collaborate with stakeholders, including industry. This raises important questions about the institutionalisation of complicity and the different forms this might take. This article asks: How can sociologists engage with the pharmaceutical industry in a positive and constructive manner, whilst remaining independent, principled and critical? It will draw on my experience of establishing a major project on high-priced drugs for rare diseases and the literature on collaboration, stakeholder engagement and responsible research to propose a methodological framework to address this challenge. This is based on six PRIMES: (normative) Principles, Reflection and Independence, (field) Mapping, (careful) Engagement and Strategic intervention that have broad applications to many other areas of contemporary social science research.

The involvement of rare disease patient organisations in therapeutic innovation across rare paediatric neurological conditions: a narrative review

Background

The patient voice is becoming increasingly prominent across all stages of therapeutic innovation. It pervades research domains from funding and recruitment, to translation, care, and support. Advances in genomic technologies have facilitated novel breakthrough therapies, whose global developments, regulatory approvals, and confined governmental subsidisations have stimulated renewed hope amongst rare disease patient organisations (RDPOs). With intensifying optimism characterising the therapeutic landscape, researcher-advocate partnerships have reached an inflexion point, at which stakeholders may evaluate their achievements and formulate frameworks for future refinement.

Main text

Through this narrative review, we surveyed relevant literature around the roles of RDPOs catering to the rare paediatric neurological disease community. Via available literature, we considered RDPO interactions within seven domains of therapeutic development: research grant funding, industry sponsorship, study recruitment, clinical care and support, patient-reported outcome measures, and research prioritisation. In doing so, we explored practical and ethical challenges, gaps in understanding, and future directions of inquiry. Current literature highlights the increasing significance of ethical and financial challenges to patient advocacy. Biomedical venture philanthropy is gaining momentum amongst RDPOs, whose small grants can incrementally assist laboratories in research, training, and pursuits of more substantial grants. However, RDPO seed funding may encounter long-term sustainability issues and difficulties in selecting appropriate research investments. Further challenges include advocate-industry collaborations, commercial biases, and unresolved controversies regarding orphan drug subsidisation. Beyond their financial interactions, RDPOs serve instrumental roles in project promotion, participant recruitment, biobank creation, and patient registry establishment. They are communication conduits between carers, patients, and other stakeholders, but their contributions may be susceptible to bias and unrealistic expectations.

Conclusion

Further insights into how RDPOs navigate practical and ethical challenges in therapeutic development may enhance cooperative efforts. They may also inform resources, whose distribution among advocates, parents, and clinicians, may assist decision-making processes around rare disease clinical trials and treatments.

The construction of rare disease discourse on YouTube: highlighting a disparity between policy rhetoric and patient practices around public engagement

Background: Policy rhetoric around the 6,000-8,000 rare diseases affecting 300 million people worldwide often focuses on public engagement. Meanwhile, medical authorities tend either to treat patients with rare diseases as pre-categorised data sources, proffer to them notions of technological self-care as empowerment, or recruit them as advocacy allies. Conversely, people living with rare diseases often mobilise and engage with one another in self-organised communities via social media to share discussion, information, and resources. How rare disease discourse forms on specific social media platforms, the role of different actors (including medical authorities and algorithms), and its relation to public engagement policy are poorly understood. Methods: This paper examines data on YouTube video watching/sharing (gathered from YouTube’s API via DMI’s ‘Data Tools for YouTube’) through social network analysis (read through a controversy analysis lens). Results: The paper identifies eight patterns – each revolving around different levels of: focus on rare disease content; engagement between content and viewers, i.e. through likes, dislikes, and surrounding particular videos; permeability of videos between categories; and repetition in viewers watching the same video. Across six of the patterns, the paper finds a rare disease issue-network forming, where discourse is constructed through three distinct communication strategies, each garnering a different form of engagement. Conclusions: Overall, the paper highlights a disconnect between how rare disease discourse is enacted on YouTube and policy promises of public engagement, with potential spaces for dialogue often closed off by medical authorities. To close, the paper provides recommendations for how policymakers might engage with and facilitate more inclusive forms of social media interaction between specific rare disease related communities and clinicians to develop more meaningful forms of knowledge exchange.

The construction of rare disease discourse on YouTube: highlighting a disparity between policy rhetoric and patient practices around public engagement

Background: Policy rhetoric around the 6,000-8,000 rare diseases affecting 300 million people worldwide often focuses on public engagement. Meanwhile, medical authorities tend either to treat patients with rare diseases as pre-categorised data sources, proffer to them notions of technological self-care as empowerment, or recruit them as advocacy allies. Conversely, people living with rare diseases often mobilise and engage with one another in self-organised communities via social media to share discussion, information, and resources. How rare disease discourse forms on specific social media platforms, the role of different actors (including medical authorities and algorithms), and its relation to public engagement policy are poorly understood. Methods: This paper examines data on YouTube video watching/sharing (gathered from YouTube’s API via DMI’s ‘Data Tools for YouTube’) through social network analysis (read through a controversy analysis lens). Results: The paper identifies eight patterns – each revolving around different levels of: focus on rare disease content; engagement between content and viewers, i.e. through likes, dislikes, and surrounding particular videos; permeability of videos between categories; and repetition in viewers watching the same video. Across six of the patterns, the paper finds a rare disease issue-network forming, where discourse is constructed through three distinct communication strategies, each garnering a different form of engagement. Conclusions: Overall, the paper highlights a disconnect between how rare disease discourse is enacted on YouTube and policy promises of public engagement, with potential spaces for dialogue often closed off by medical authorities. To close, the paper provides recommendations for how policymakers might engage with and facilitate more inclusive forms of social media interaction between specific rare disease related communities and clinicians to develop more meaningful forms of knowledge exchange.

Entrepreneurial treatment activism for undone science: mannitol and Parkinson's disease

This paper describes CliniCrowd, a patient-designed, entrepreneurial, crowd-sourced citizen-science approach to evaluating mannitol-essentially, an orphan drug-as a Parkinson's disease treatment. As such, CliniCrowd addresses 'undone science', and our paper contributes to the sociological literature thereon. Based on 38 qualitative interviews, fieldwork, and content analyses (2017-2020), we trace CliniCrowd's background and rationale. We: discuss undone science and its wider contexts; present earlier iterations of citizen-science and treatment activism; examine CliniCrowd's application of crowd-sourced citizen-science to address undone science around 'orphan drug' treatment for Parkinson's disease; explore how CliniCrowd has evolved, and re-framed its work, since its founding; ponder its future; and consider whether their approach can guide future citizen-science treatment research. Our paper contributes to the existing literature in four ways. First, we focus on medical treatment issues, an under-studied area of undone science. Second, we highlight orphan drugs as both major source of, and fruitful area for research on, undone science. Third, we describe CliniCrowd's pragmatic, entrepreneurial-rather than the more common activist-citizen-science approach to addressing undone treatment science. Finally, from our data on CliniCrowd we distil a preliminary model for future treatment activism around undone science.

Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review

Background

Patients and consumers are increasingly engaged in health policymaking, research and drug regulation. Having financial relationships with the health industry creates situations of conflicts of interest (COI) and might compromise their meaningful and unbiased participation.

Objective

To synthesize available evidence on the financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE. We selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We reported on outcomes related to financial relationships of individuals with, and/or funding of organizations by the health industry.

Results

We identified a total of 14 510 unique citations, of which 24 reports of 23 studies were eligible. Three studies (13%) addressed the financial relationship of patient and consumer representatives with the health industry. Of these, two examined the proportion of public speakers in drug regulatory processes who have financial relationships; the proportions in the two studies were 25% and 19% respectively. Twenty studies (87%) addressed funding of patient and consumer organizations. The median proportion of organizations that reported funding from the health industry was 62% (IQR: 34%‐69%) in questionnaire surveys, and 75% (IQR: 58%‐85%) in surveys of their websites. Among organizations for which there was evidence of industry funding, a median proportion of 29% (IQR: 27%‐44%) acknowledged on their websites receiving that funding.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations are common and may not be disclosed. Stricter regulation on disclosure and management is needed.