Patient Centricity in Patient Preference Studies: The Patient Perspective

The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Measure Treatment Satisfaction in Drug Development

Treatment satisfaction is a person's rating of his or her treatment experience, including processes and outcomes. It is directly related to treatment adherence, which may be predictive of treatment effectiveness in clinical and real-world research. Consequently, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments have been developed to incorporate patient experience throughout various stages of drug development and routine care. PRO instruments enable clinicians and researchers to evaluate and compare treatment satisfaction data in different clinical settings. It is important to select fit-for-purpose PRO instruments that have demonstrated adequate levels of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change to support their use. Some of these instruments are unidimensional while some are multidimensional; some are generic and can be applied across different therapeutic areas, while others have been developed for use in a specific treatment modality or condition. This article describes the role of treatment satisfaction in drug development as well as regulatory and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) decision making and calls for more widespread use of carefully selected treatment satisfaction PRO instruments in early- and late-phase drug development.

Studying How Patient Engagement Influences Research: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

There is evidence supporting the value of patient engagement (PE) in research to patients and researchers. However, there is little research evidence on the influence of PE throughout the entire research process as well as the outcomes of research engagement. The purpose of our study is to add to this evidence.

METHODS

We used a convergent mixed method design to guide the integration of our survey data and observation data to assess the influence of PE in two groups, comprising patient research partners (PRPs), clinicians, and researchers. A PRP led one group (PLG) and an academic researcher led the other (RLG). Both groups were given the same research question and tasked to design and conduct an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related patient preference study. We administered validated evaluation tools at three points and observed PE in the two groups conducting the IBD study.

RESULTS

PRPs in both groups took on many operational roles and influenced all stages of the IBD-related qualitative study: launch, design, implementation, and knowledge translation. PRPs provided more clarity on the study design, target population, inclusion-exclusion criteria, data collection approach, and the results. PRPs helped operationalize the project question, develop study material and data collection instruments, collect data, and present the data in a relevant and understandable manner to the patient community. The synergy of collaborative partnership resulted in two projects that were patient-centered, meaningful, understandable, legitimate, rigorous, adaptable, feasible, ethical and transparent, timely, and sustainable.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative and meaningful engagement of patients and researchers can influence all stages of qualitative research including design and approach, and outputs.

The Needs of Patients With Chronic Disease in Transitional Care From Hospital to Home in Sudan: A Qualitative Study

The growing burden of chronic non-communicable diseases demands improved post-discharge care. The Sudanese healthcare system faces challenges in providing coordinated care for patients with chronic conditions after hospital discharge. This qualitative study explored the experiences of patients with chronic disease in transitional care from hospital to home to identify improvement targets. Purposive sampling was used to interview 17 participants from different hospitals in Khartoum, Sudan. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using principles of content analysis to identify themes and the relationship between them. Thematic analysis revealed 4 main themes describing the perceived needs of the patients. These were (1) feeling well-informed about post-discharge care goals and plans; (2) feeling cared for during hospital admission and follow-up visits; (3) feeling safe during the transitional care process; and (4) having access to follow-up services. This study highlights the importance of improving hospital patient education through effective communication to facilitate care transitions.

Barriers and facilitators in developing patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - qualitative interviews on experiences of international guideline producers

BACKGROUND

Several guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts' perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs.

METHODS

We conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In two interviews two participants were interviewed at the same time. This resulted in a total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and eight different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development.

CONCLUSION

The steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future may be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.

Exploring the outcomes of research engagement using the observation method in an online setting

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research.

DESIGN

We observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted online.

PARTICIPANTS

Patient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Transcripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE.

RESULTS

Both projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.

Patient-Centric Product Development: A Summary of Select Regulatory CMC and Device Considerations

Patient-centric drug development describes the systematic approach to incorporating the patient's perspectives and preferences into the design, assessment, and production of a therapeutic product. While a patient centric approach can be applied at any stage of the drug development lifecycle, an integrated end-to-end strategy is often most effective to create an optimized product for the patient at the earliest possible timepoint. The importance of patient centricity is well recognized by health authorities and biopharmaceutical organizations which have established toolsets, guidances, and methodologies for incorporating patient input during the clinical stage of development. However, in addition to clinical research, there are other significant aspects of product development that profoundly impact the patient experience. Specifically, chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) and device aspects must also be acknowledged and addressed as part of a cohesive patient-centric development strategy. This review explores current applications and regulatory considerations for patient-centric approaches across the product lifecycle, including R&D, early product development, clinical development, device and combination product development, and post-approval change management. Specific topics of discussion include the contributions of product modality, formulation, and devices to the patient experience; usage of the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) as a patient-centered design tool; and post-approval product optimization. Future advancements in regulatory data management and information exchange are also explored as potential enablers of patient engagement which support enhanced communication and interconnectivity between stakeholders. Multidisciplinary collaboration between patients, health authorities, health care providers, and the biopharmaceutical industry is ultimately necessary for ensuring that medicinal products, and their corresponding regulatory processes, take on a patient-first mindset that prioritizes patient needs, values, and preferences.

Suitability of Preference Methods Across the Medical Product Lifecycle: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand the importance of criteria describing methods (eg, duration, costs, validity, and outcomes) according to decision makers for each decision point in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC) and to determine the suitability of a discrete choice experiment, swing weighting, probabilistic threshold technique, and best-worst scale cases 1 and 2 at each decision point in the MPLC.

METHODS

Applying multicriteria decision analysis, an online survey was sent to MPLC decision makers (ie, industry, regulatory, and health technology assessment representatives). They ranked and weighted 19 methods criteria from an existing performance matrix about their respective decisions across the MPLC. All criteria were given a relative weight based on the ranking and rating in the survey after which an overall suitability score was calculated for each preference elicitation method per decision point. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to reflect uncertainty in the performance matrix.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine industry, 29 regulatory, and 5 health technology assessment representatives completed the surveys. Overall, "estimating trade-offs between treatment characteristics" and "estimating weights for treatment characteristics" were highly important criteria throughout all MPLC decision points, whereas other criteria were most important only for specific MPLC stages. Swing weighting and probabilistic threshold technique received significantly higher suitability scores across decision points than other methods. Sensitivity analyses showed substantial impact of uncertainty in the performance matrix.

CONCLUSION

Although discrete choice experiment is the most applied preference elicitation method, other methods should also be considered to address the needs of decision makers. Development of evidence-based guidance documents for designing, conducting, and analyzing such methods could enhance their use.

Critical Success Factors for Successful Implementation of Healthcare 4.0: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

The digitization of healthcare services is a major shift in the manner in which healthcare services are offered and managed in the modern era. The COVID-19 pandemic has speeded up the use of digital technologies in the healthcare sector. Healthcare 4.0 (H4.0) is much more than the adoption of digital tools, however; going beyond that, it is the digital transformation of healthcare. The successful implementation of H 4.0 presents a challenge as social and technical factors must be considered. This study, through a systematic literature review, expounds ten critical success factors for the successful implementation of H 4.0. Bibliometric analysis of existing articles is also carried out to understand the development of knowledge in this domain. H 4.0 is rapidly gaining prominence, and a comprehensive review of critical success factors in this area has yet to be conducted. Conducting such a review makes a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge in healthcare operations management. Furthermore, this study will also help healthcare practitioners and policymakers to develop strategies to manage the ten critical success factors while implementing H 4.0.

Using Patient Perspectives to Inform Better Clinical Trial Design and Conduct: Current Trends and Future Directions

The approach to patient engagement (PE) in drug development has changed rapidly due to many factors, including the complexity of innovative drugs and the need to demonstrate outcomes of relevance to patients, the desire to show 'value add' of PE, and the pandemic-related changes to how clinical trials are run, e.g., decentralised studies. In parallel, there have been changes in technology-assisted ways of running clinical trials, capturing patient health outcomes and preferences, an increasing societal demand for diversity and inclusion, and efforts to improve clinical trial efficiency, transparency, and accountability. Organisations are beginning to monitor PE activities and outcomes more effectively to learn and inform future PE strategies. As a result, these factors are facilitating the incorporation of patients' lived experience, preferences and needs into the design and running of clinical trials more than ever before. In this paper, the authors reflect upon these last few years, the emerging trends and their drivers, and where we may expect PE in clinical research to progress in the near future.

Patient Preferences for Cardiac Rehabilitation - A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation(CR), patient preferences for CR remain unclear. Knowing patient preferences may contribute to increasing patient participation and adherence, thus improving patient prognosis.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out using electronic databases and manual reference checks from inception until 15th June 2022. Quantitative studies, qualitative studies and mixed methods studies assessing patient preferences for CR were included. Two researchers independently conducted study selectionand data extraction. CR preferences were divided into three categories: CR settings, CR components, and CR contents. A narrative synthesis was applied to integrate the results of the included studies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 17 publications were included in this study. Regarding CR settings, most patients preferred the hospital to home, some considered both, and a few were willing to accept the local CR club as an alternative setting to the hospital. For CR components, regardless of age and gender, patients considered exercise training and nutrition counseling to be the most important and smoking cessation to be the least important. In exercise intervention of CR contents, progress discussion and encouragement were rated as most critical, and non-conflicting with other activities was rated as least critical. In psychological intervention of CR contents, most patients were willing to accept psychological intervention, and a few patients wanted to heal the trauma with the passage of time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides important insights into patient preferences for CR, clarifying patient preferences for CR settings, components, and contents, along with possible influencing factors. Patient preferences may change due to the COVID-19 epidemic, and there is still a need to focus on patient preferences for CR and conduct more relevant primary research to validate the findings of this paper in the future.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

Introduction: Gene therapies are innovative therapies that are increasingly being developed. However, health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making on these therapies is impeded by uncertainties, especially regarding long-term outcomes. Through measuring patient preferences regarding gene therapies, the importance of unique elements that go beyond health gain can be quantified and inform value assessments. We designed a study, namely the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study, that can inform HTA and payers by investigating trade-offs that adult Belgian hemophilia A and B patients are willing to make when asked to choose between a standard of care and gene therapy.

Methods and Analysis: An eight-step approach was taken to establish the protocol for this study: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) initial attributes identification, (3) stakeholder (HTA and payer) needs identification, (4) patient relevant attributes and information needs identification, (5) level identification and choice task construction, (6) educational tool design, (7) survey integration, and (8) piloting and pretesting. In the end, a threshold technique survey was designed using the attributes “Annual bleeding rate,” “Chance to stop prophylaxis,” “Time that side effects have been studied,” and “Quality of Life.”

Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee of UZ KU Leuven/Research approved the study. Results from the study will be presented to stakeholders and patients at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We hope that results from the PAVING study can inform decision makers on the acceptability of uncertainties and the value of gene therapies to patients.