Moving forward from drug-centred to patient-centred research

Patient-centricity in digital measure development: co-evolution of best practice and regulatory guidance

Digital health technologies (DHTs) have the potential to modernize drug development and clinical trial operations by remotely, passively, and continuously collecting ecologically valid evidence that is meaningful to patients' lived experiences. Such evidence holds potential for all drug development stakeholders, including regulatory agencies, as it will help create a stronger evidentiary link between approval of new therapeutics and the ultimate aim of improving patient lives. However, only a very small number of novel digital measures have matured from exploratory usage into regulatory qualification or efficacy endpoints. This shows that despite the clear potential, actually gaining regulatory agreement that a new measure is both fit-for-purpose and delivers value remains a serious challenge. One of the key stumbling blocks for developers has been the requirement to demonstrate that a digital measure is meaningful to patients. This viewpoint aims to examine the co-evolution of regulatory guidance in the United States (U.S.) and best practice for integration of DHTs into the development of clinical outcome assessments. Contextualizing guidance on meaningfulness within the larger shift towards a patient-centric drug development approach, this paper reviews the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance and existing literature surrounding the development of meaningful digital measures and patient engagement, including the recent examples of rejections by the FDA that further emphasize patient-centricity in digital measures. Finally, this paper highlights remaining hurdles and provides insights into the established frameworks for development and adoption of digital measures in clinical research.

A patient-centred and multi-stakeholder co-designed observational prospective study protocol: Example of the adolescent experience of treatment for X-linked hypophosphataemia (XLH)

The importance of patient centricity and keeping the patient at the heart of research design is now well recognised within the healthcare community. The involvement of patient, caregiver and clinician representatives in the study design process may help researchers to achieve this goal and to ensure robust and meaningful data generation. Real-world data collection allows for a more flexible and patient-centred research approach for gaining important insights into the experience of disease and treatments, which is acutely relevant for rare diseases where knowledge about the disease is more likely to be limited. Here, we describe a practical example of a patient-centric, multi-stakeholder approach that led to the co-design of a prospective observational study investigating the lived experience of adolescents with the rare disease, X-linked hypophosphataemia. Specifically, we describe how the knowledge and expertise of a diverse research team, which included expert physicians, research and technology specialists, patients and caregivers, were applied in order to identify the relevant research questions and to ensure the robustness of the study design and its appropriateness to the population of interest within the context of the current clinical landscape. We also demonstrate how a structured patient engagement exercise was key to informing the selection of appropriate outcome measures, data sources, timing of data collection, and to assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed data collection approach.

Patient engagement as a core element of translating clinical evidence into practice- application of the COM-B model behaviour change model

BACKGROUND

The results of rehabilitation trials are often not fully attained when the intervention is implemented beyond the initial trial. One of the key reasons is that a patients' ability and/or capacity to take part in their own healthcare is not considered in the trial design yet has significant impact on the outcomes during the implementation phase.

BODY OF TEXT

We propose a shift from a therapist-focus to patient-focus in trial design, through addressing patient engagement as a core consideration in trials. We argue that engaging patients in any rehabilitation program is a process of behavioural change. Exercise prescription is used as an example to illustrate how the Behaviour Change Wheel can be applied to analyse barriers and facilitators associated with patients' capabilities, opportunities and motivations in integrating trial interventions into their daily life. We propose a framework to assist in this shift.

CONCLUSION

A core part of implementing rehabilitation interventions at the primary care level requires patient engagement. Related aspects of interventions should be identified and assessed using the COM-B model at the outset of trial design to ensure that the results are realistic, meaningful and transferable, so as to enable real impact.

Analysis of the characteristics and the degree of pragmatism exhibited by pragmatic-labelled trials of antineoplastic treatments

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified.

METHODS

We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57-3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature.

CONCLUSION

PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory.

Patient Willingness to Use Digital Health Technologies: A Quantitative and Qualitative Survey in Patients with Cancer Cachexia

Purpose

The objective of this study was to gain insights into the patients' perspectives on the impact of cancer cachexia on physical activity and their willingness to wear digital health technology (DHT) devices in clinical trials.

Patients and Methods

We administered a quantitative 20-minute online survey on aspects of physical activity (on a 0-100 scale) to 50 patients with cancer cachexia recruited through Rare Patient Voice, LLC. A subset of 10 patients took part in qualitative 45-minute web-based interviews with a demonstration of DHT devices. Survey questions related to the impact of weight loss (a key characteristic in Fearon's cachexia definition) on physical activity, patients' expectations regarding desired improvements and their level of meaningful activities, as well as preferences for DHT.

Results

Seventy-eight percent of patients reported that their physical activity was impacted by cachexia, and for 77% of them, such impact was consistent over time. Patients perceived most impact of weight loss on walking distance, time and speed, and on level of activity during the day. Sleep, activity level, walking quality and distance were identified as the most meaningful activities to improve. Patients would like to see a moderate improvement of activity levels and consider it meaningful to perform physical activity of moderate intensity (eg, walk at normal pace) on a regular basis. The wrist was the preferred location for wearing a DHT device, followed by arm, ankle, and waist.

Conclusion

Most patients reported physical activity limitations since the occurrence of weight loss compatible with cancer-associated cachexia. Walking distance, sleep and quality of walk were the most meaningful activities to moderately improve, and patients consider moderate physical activity as meaningful. Finally, this study population found the proposed wear of DHT devices on the wrist and around the waist acceptable for the duration of clinical studies.

Practices of patient engagement in drug development: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has attracted significant attention in the field of drug development. Readiness to accept the central importance of patients' knowledge and contributions has become evident. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the current state of PE in drug development: what is actually being done and how.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was conducted based on a PRISMA-informed protocol. Search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, covering the period between 2011 and 2021. For analysis of extracted data, we developed a framework for analyzing PE in Drug Development. The Framework distinguishes a number of different PE types that take place at different stages of drug development and are characterized by the different degrees of power patients have in the process. It allowed us to assess depth and intensity of PE initiatives included in this review.

RESULTS

Most included PE initiatives took place at the stage of designing studies (40 in total). At this stage drug development goals are already set, but the mode of reaching them has not yet been fully determined. PE initiatives on the finetuning details stage followed (16 in total). The finetuning details stage covers the last parts of the drug development trajectory, when only relatively minor issues are still open for patients' contributions. The least numerous were PE initiatives on the stage of setting up R&D program (13 in total). This stage refers to the early steps in drug development where PE has the potential to make the most impact on shaping the subsequent process. In terms of intensity of engagement, most PE initiatives included in this review align with consultation and involvement types, 26 and 30 initiatives, respectively. Partnership was less frequent in the published accounts of PE (13 initiatives).

CONCLUSIONS

This review delineated a contemporary landscape of PE in drug development. Although attention to PE in drug development is relatively recent, a wide range of PE practices has already been initiated. The results indicate the necessity of distinguishing between different types of PE in order to understand consequences of choices regarding depth and intensity of PE.

Real-life effectiveness of mepolizumab in severe asthma: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in randomized controlled trials is well established. Following approval of mepolizumab as add-on therapy for severe eosinophilic asthma in multiple regions worldwide, it is now important to determine its impact in real-world settings in which patients are not subject to stringent eligibility criteria. This systematic literature review assessed published evidence of clinical outcomes, safety, and healthcare resource use among patients with severe asthma receiving mepolizumab in real-world settings.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process via Ovid.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Eligible studies were observational, and enrolled ≥10 patients with asthma who received mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously. Data extracted included annualized exacerbation rate, mean daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose, proportion of patients using OCS, several measures of lung function, patient-reported asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety, and economic burden.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles (22 unique studies; 2,040 patients with severe asthma on mepolizumab) were identified. Mepolizumab use was associated with a reduction in annualized exacerbation rates (requiring OCS) of 54-97% (p < 0.05 in all studies), reduced mean/median daily OCS doses, and OCS discontinuation during follow-up (27-84% of patients). Improvements in lung function, asthma control, and HRQoL were also observed. The most commonly reported adverse events included headache and arthralgia; discontinuation of mepolizumab due to adverse events occurred in 0-10.6% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Findings show that patients with severe asthma consistently demonstrate clinically relevant benefits with mepolizumab treatment in a real-world setting.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at at www.tandfonline.com/ijas .

Design, organisation and impact of treatment optimisation studies in breast, lung and colorectal cancer: The experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment optimisation studies (TOSs) are clinical trials which aim to tackle research questions that are often left unaddressed within the current drug development paradigm due to a lack of financial and regulatory incentives to undertake them. Examples include comparative effectiveness, therapeutic sequencing and dose de-escalation studies. Trials of this nature have historically been primarily carried out by academic institutions and not-for-profit organisations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the breast, lung and colorectal cancer TOSs that have been performed by the EORTC in the past four decades.

METHODS

We searched the EORTC clinical trials database for relevant studies and subsequently analysed them based on a number of predefined criteria relating to their design, organisation and scientific impact.

RESULTS

The 113 EORTC TOSs examined in this analysis were mainly standard-sized, international, multicentre phase III trials using a relatively simple, randomised, open-label design and comparing pharmacological combination regimens against standard-of-care treatments in terms of their potential to improve overall survival of patients with cancer. Although they were typically financially and/or materially supported by the industry, their legal sponsor was nearly always an independent party that did not benefit monetarily from their outcomes. If meaningful findings were obtained, their results, regardless of whether positive or negative, were published in high-impact journals, and the corresponding articles usually received a considerable number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides an empirical framework for setting up future TOSs based on the EORTC experience in oncology.

Past, Current, and Future Cancer Clinical Research Collaborations: The Case of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Although collaborations between academic institutions and industry have led to important scientific breakthroughs in the discovery stage of the pharmaceutical research and development process, the role of multistakeholder partnerships in the clinical development of anticancer medicines necessitates further clarification. The benefits associated with such cooperation could be undercut by the conflicting goals and motivations of the actors included. The aim of this review was to identify and characterize past, present, and future stakeholder partnership models in cancer clinical research through the lens of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Based on the analysis of several landmark EORTC trials performed across the span of three decades, four existing models of stakeholder cooperation were delineated and characterized. Additionally, a hypothetical fifth model representing a potential future collaborative framework for cancer clinical research was formulated. These models mainly differ in terms of the nature and responsibilities of the partners included and show that clinical research partnerships in oncology have evolved over time from small‐scale academia‐industry collaborations to complex interdisciplinary cooperation involving many different stakeholders.

Understanding the use of observational and randomized data in cardiovascular medicine

The availability of large datasets from multiple sources [e.g. registries, biobanks, electronic health records (EHRs), claims or billing databases, implantable devices, wearable sensors, and mobile apps], coupled with advances in computing and analytic technologies, have provided new opportunities for conducting innovative health research. Equally, improved digital access to health information has facilitated the conduct of efficient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) upon which clinical management decisions can be based, for instance, by permitting the identification of eligible patients for recruitment and/or linkage for follow-up via their EHRs. Given these advances in cardiovascular data science and the complexities they behold, it is important that health professionals have clarity on the appropriate use and interpretation of observational, so-called 'real-world', and randomized data in cardiovascular medicine. The Cardiovascular Roundtable of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) held a workshop to explore the future of RCTs and the current and emerging opportunities for gathering and exploiting complex observational datasets in cardiovascular research. The aim of this article is to provide a perspective on the appropriate use of randomized and observational data and to outline the ESC plans for supporting the collection and availability of clinical data to monitor and improve the quality of care of patients with cardiovascular disease in Europe and provide an infrastructure for undertaking pragmatic RCTs. Moreover, the ESC continues to campaign for greater engagement amongst regulators, industry, patients, and health professionals in the development and application of a more efficient regulatory framework that is able to take maximal advantage of new opportunities for improving the design and efficiency of observational studies and RCT in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Views of European Drug Development Stakeholders on Treatment Optimization and Its Potential for Use in Decision-Making

Background

The current drug development paradigm has been criticized for being too drug-centered and for not adequately focusing on the patients who will eventually be administered the therapeutic interventions it generates. The drug-driven nature of the present framework has led to the emergence of a research gap between the pre-approval development of anticancer medicines and their post-registration use in real-life clinical practice. This gap could potentially be bridged by transitioning toward a patient-centered paradigm that places a strong emphasis on treatment optimization, which strives to optimize the way health technologies are applied in a real-world environment. However, questions remain concerning the ideal features of treatment optimization studies and their acceptability among key stakeholders.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to explore the views of key stakeholders in the drug development process regarding the concept of treatment optimization.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and May 2019 with 26 participants across ten EU Member States and six different stakeholder groups, including academic clinicians as well as representatives of patient organizations, regulatory authorities, health technology assessment agencies, payers, and industry.

Results

Based on the input of the experts interviewed, clarification was obtained regarding the optimal features of treatment optimization studies in terms of their conduct, funding, timing, design, and setting. Moreover, a number of opportunities and challenges of undertaking such trials were identified. Inter-stakeholder discussion during their design was seen as desirable. There was also broad support among the participants for regulatory measures to facilitate treatment optimization, although there was no agreement on the optimal scale and nature of these initiatives. Furthermore, the interviewees believed that the evidence strength of well-designed treatment optimization studies performed according to rigorous quality standards is greater than or at least equal to that of classical clinical trials. In addition, there was a strong consensus that the results of treatment optimization studies should be taken into account during the decision-making of regulators, payers, and/or clinicians.

Conclusions

Stakeholders involved in drug development consider treatment optimization studies to be valuable tools to address current evidence gaps and support their implementation into the existing research framework.

The Oncology Data Network (ODN): A Collaborative European Data-Sharing Platform to Inform Cancer Care

The rise of precision oncology has made clinical decision making more complex than ever before. The Oncology Data Network was established to enable the clinical community to efficiently access potentially practice‐changing insights from an extended network of cancer centers. This article describes the progress to date and calls for greater collaboration.