Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Patient Engagement in Health Product Research and Development: Co-Creating a Framework for Community Advisory Boards

PURPOSE

While patient engagement is becoming more customary in developing health products, its monitoring and evaluation to understand processes and enhance impact are challenging. This article describes a patient engagement monitoring and evaluation (PEME) framework, co-created and tailored to the context of community advisory boards (CABs) for rare diseases in Europe. It can be used to stimulate learning and evaluate impacts of engagement activities.

METHODS

A participatory approach was used in which data collection and analysis were iterative. The process was based on the principles of interactive learning and action and guided by the PEME framework. Data were collected via document analysis, reflection sessions, a questionnaire, and a workshop.

RESULTS

The tailored framework consists of a theory of change model with metrics explaining how CABs can reach their objectives. Of 61 identified metrics, 17 metrics for monitoring the patient engagement process and short-term outcomes were selected, and a "menu" for evaluating long-term impacts was created. Example metrics include "Industry representatives' understanding of patients' unmet needs;" "Feeling of trust between stakeholders;" and "Feeling of preparedness." "Alignment of research programs with patients' needs" was the highest-ranked metric for long-term impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that process and short-term outcome metrics could be standardized across CABs, whereas long-term impact metrics may need to be tailored to the collaboration from a proposed menu. Accordingly, we recommend that others adapt and refine the PEME framework as appropriate. The next steps include implementing and testing the evaluation framework to stimulate learning and share impacts.

Evaluation of patient engagement in medicine development: A multi-stakeholder framework with metrics

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement is becoming more customary in medicine development. However, embedding it in organizational decision-making remains challenging, partly due to lack of agreement on its value and the means to evaluate it. The objective of this project was to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework, with metrics, to demonstrate impact and enhance learning.

METHODS

A consortium of five patient groups, 15 biopharmaceutical companies and two academic groups iteratively created a framework in a multi-phase participatory process, including analysis of its application in 24 cases.

RESULTS

The framework includes six components, with 87 metrics and 15 context factors distributed among (sub)components: (a) Input: expectations, preparations, resources, representativeness of stakeholders; (b) Activities/process: structure, management, interactions, satisfaction; (c) Learnings and changes; (d) Impacts: research relevance, study ethics and inclusiveness, study quality and efficiency, quality of evidence and uptake of products, empowerment, reputation and trust, embedding of patient engagement; (e) Context: policy, institutional, community, decision-making contextual factors. Case study findings show a wide variation in use of metrics. There is no 'one size fits all' set of metrics appropriate for every initiative or organization. Presented sample sets of metrics can be tailored to individual situations.

CONCLUSION

Introducing change into any process is best done when the value of that change is clear. This framework allows participants to select what metrics they value and assess to what extent patient engagement has contributed.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Five patient groups were involved in all phases of the study (design, conduct, interpretation of data) and in writing the manuscript.

Streamlining the institutional review board process in pragmatic randomized clinical trials: challenges and lessons learned from the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) trial

Background

New considerations during the ethical review processes may emerge from innovative, yet unfamiliar operational methods enabled in pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCT), potentially making institutional review board (IRB) evaluation more complex. In this manuscript, key components of the pragmatic “Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE)” randomized trial that required a reappraisal of the IRB submission, review, and approval processes are discussed.

Main text

ADAPTABLE is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT evaluating the comparative effectiveness of two doses of aspirin widely used for secondary prevention (81 mg and 325 mg) in 15,000 patients with an established history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The electronic informed consent form is completed online by the participants at the time of enrollment, and endpoint ascertainment is conducted through queries of electronic health records.

IRB challenges encountered regarding centralized IRB evaluation, electronic informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination in ADAPTABLE are described in this manuscript. The experience of ADAPTABLE encapsulates how pragmatic protocol components intended to facilitate the study conduct have been tempered by unexpected, yet justified concerns raised by local IRBs. How the lessons learned can be applied to future similar pragmatic trials is delineated.

Conclusion

Development of engaging communication channels between IRB and study personnel in pragmatic randomized trials as early as at the time of protocol design allows to reduce issues with IRB approval. Integrations of the lessons learned in ADAPTABLE regarding the IRB process for centralized IRBs, informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination can be emulated and will be instrumental in future pragmatic studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05026-w.

Reflections on the Evolution of Patient Engagement in Drug Development

This article presents the author's opinion on the past and present state of the Patient Engagement movement and discusses ways in which the movement will need to change and evolve if it is to become viable and standard practice in drug development. For most of the past decade, drug development sponsors-both government-funded and industry-funded research-have been aspirational in their support of Patient Engagement initiatives. New frameworks and guidelines have been proposed and developed, and a wide variety of initiatives have been planned and piloted. Many factors have facilitated a tentative and experimental posture-these include internal resistance to modifying legacy practices and processes; insufficient funding and staff to implement and manage initiatives; lack of clarity from regulatory and health authorities; and uncertainty around expected impact and return on investment. Recently, research sponsors have begun restructuring their Patient Engagement capabilities and they have been seeking more concrete return on engagement measures. These developments signal that the Patient Engagement movement has entered a new phase, becoming more rigorous as it seeks to balance ethical and moral obligations with scientific and business imperatives.

Giving Voice to Clinical Study Participants: Development and Deployment of Sequential Patient Experience Surveys for Global Clinical Studies

Background

Biopharmaceutical companies are piloting patient experience surveys (PES) to help enhance patient satisfaction with clinical studies. However, most PES have been conducted at study close-out, which can hinder recall and responsiveness, and at a limited number of sites, which restricts their applicability to global studies. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of developing sequential PES, which would be deployed globally, and to provide practical recommendations based on our real-world experience.

Methods

To develop sequential PES (introductory, interim, close-out), we customized a previously developed patient experience close-out survey. Extensive input was gained from multiple stakeholders (e.g., survey experts, patient advisors, psychometricians, clinical trialists, lawyers). To deploy the PES in global studies, we prepared PES-specific ethics committee submissions, training materials (e.g., slides, videos), and PES invitation aids (postcards, digital app reminders).

Results

Developing and deploying sequential PES in global clinical studies was feasible. The 3-part online PES (25 to 37 questions per survey) passed health literacy testing. To facilitate benchmarking, the PES included core questions (including a Net Promoter Score question). The PES gained ethics approval and was deployed globally in 2017–2018 in 12 phase 2 and 3 clinical studies in North America, Europe, and the Asia–Pacific. Based on the real-world insights gained and the challenges encountered, we have made recommendations for PES.

Conclusions

Our practical recommendations on the development and deployment of sequential global PES may assist others to implement PES efficiently and effectively, allowing them to gain feedback from patients globally during clinical studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s43441-020-00115-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Uniting Discovery and Care: The Role of Pharmaceutical Companies in Research, Clinical Studies, and Patient Care

In an era of increased complexity of clinical research, a demand for personalized medicine, an increasing value of diversity, a focus on digital health, and a call for patient centricity, the discovery and development of new medicines, more than ever, is dependent on collaboration between multiple stakeholders.

Building the case for developing a medical affairs patient-centric framework collaboratively

Within the biopharmaceutical environment there are increased expectations for medical affairs to serve as a patient understanding facilitator, engagement champion and empowerment enabler. The collaborative development of a medical affairs patient-centricity framework to characterize avenues of medical affairs patient-centric activity could enhance transparency of objectives, input and outputs of medical affairs interactions with the patient. This article presents an initial opinion regarding how medical affairs interacts with patients to advance patient centricity. The proposal: medical affairs engages and collaborates with patients through strategic leadership, medical communication, evidence generation, patient engagement and experience of patient care. Once validated, such a framework's implementation could help clarify medical affairs competencies and behaviors necessary to optimize associated effort.

Assessing Biopharmaceutical Company Experience with Patient-centric Initiatives

PURPOSE

A growing number of biopharmaceutical companies have been implementing patient-centric initiatives (PCIs). The Drug Information Association (DIA) and the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) collaborated on a study to gather data on the usage and impact of these PCIs to characterize company experience and impact.

METHODS

DIA and Tufts CSDD collaborated with 17 organizations to define PCIs used in clinical research and development and to quantify their use, and to define metrics in use to document impact and return on engagement (ROE) for these PCIs. The study used a mixed methods approach that consisted of an online survey, in-depth interviews, and literature review.

FINDINGS

Twenty-two unique companies responded to an on-line survey on the use of 23 PCIs identified by the study working group. PCIs most frequently implemented included patient organization landscape analysis, support of patient advocacy groups, use of patient advisory boards, and use of home nursing networks. Seven additional PCIs were found through a literature search and included in the group of PCIs for which impact measures were assessed. A total of 121 cases of use of the 30 PCIs and associated impact measures and impact data were gathered through literature review, in-depth interviews with the study companies, and in-depth interviews with organizations identified in the literature as having experience with patient engagement in clinical research as well as with patients who had participated in clinical trials. Analysis of the 121 case studies resulted in a list of 666 measures of impact (metrics) in use for 13 of the PCIs. Assessment of overall ROE for these PCIs found that PCIs such as support of patient advocacy groups and use of patient advisory boards indicated the greatest ROE, whereas costlier, more complex PCIs such as digital medicine and gaming indicated relatively low ROE.

IMPLICATIONS

Activity around PCIs among the companies studied was widespread, with initiatives more frequently planned and piloted than implemented at the time of this study. Measures of impact have been identified and can be used to assess ROE, providing insights to facilitate the adoption of PCIs of highest impact for patients and biopharmaceutical research organizations.

Using Patient Advisory Boards to Solicit Input Into Clinical Trial Design and Execution

Academic institutions, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, foundations, and associations are routinely implementing patient advisory boards (PABs) to solicit patients' voices and perspectives on a variety of clinical research-related areas, including protocol design, clinical trial execution, informed-consent form design, clinical trial medicine kit design, wearable devices and mobile technologies, and patient-communication materials. Based on experience conducting >50 PABs during the past several years, the authors provide insights into how to best plan and execute PABs and their value in informing improvement in patient engagement.