Mobilizing Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Real-World Digital Technology Solutions: Tutorial

Although the value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities in the development of new interventions and tools is well known, little guidance exists on how to perform these activities in a meaningful way. This is particularly true within large research consortia that target multiple objectives, include multiple patient groups, and work across many countries. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that PPIE may not capture patient opinions and needs correctly, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of new tools. Mobilise-D is an example of a large research consortium that aims to develop new digital outcome measures for real-world walking in 4 patient cohorts. Mobility is an important indicator of physical health. As such, there is potential clinical value in being able to accurately measure a person's mobility in their daily life environment to help researchers and clinicians better track changes and patterns in a person's daily life and activities. To achieve this, there is a need to create new ways of measuring walking. Recent advancements in digital technology help researchers meet this need. However, before any new measure can be used, researchers, health care professionals, and regulators need to know that the digital method is accurate and both accepted by and produces meaningful outcomes for patients and clinicians. Therefore, this paper outlines how PPIE structures were developed in the Mobilise-D consortium, providing details about the steps taken to implement PPIE, the experiences PPIE contributors had within this process, the lessons learned from the experiences, and recommendations for others who may want to do similar work in the future. The work outlined in this paper provided the Mobilise-D consortium with a foundation from which future PPIE tasks can be created and managed with clearly defined collaboration between researchers and patient representatives across Europe. This paper provides guidance on the work required to set up PPIE structures within a large consortium to promote and support the creation of meaningful and efficient PPIE related to the development of digital mobility outcomes.

What bothers severe asthma patients most? A paired patient-clinician study across seven European countries

Introduction

Severe asthma is a complex, multidimensional disease. Optimal treatment, adherence and outcomes require shared decision-making, rooted in mutual understanding between patient and clinician. This study used a novel, patient-centred approach to examine the most bothersome aspects of severe asthma to patients, as seen from both perspectives in asthma registries.

Methods

Across seven countries, 126 patients with severe asthma completed an open-ended survey regarding most the bothersome aspect(s) of their asthma. Patients' responses were linked with their treating clinician who also completed a free-text survey about each patient's most bothersome aspect(s). Responses were coded using content analysis, and patient and clinician responses were compared. Finally, asthma registries that are part of the SHARP (Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred) Clinical Research Collaboration were examined to see the extent to which they reflected the most bothersome aspects reported by patients.

Results

88 codes and 10 themes were identified. Clinicians were more focused on direct physical symptoms and were less focused on "holistic" aspects such as the effort required to self-manage the disease. Clinicians accurately identified a most bothersome symptom for 29% of patients. Agreement was particularly low with younger patients and those using oral corticosteroids infrequently. In asthma registries, patient aspects were predominantly represented in questionnaires.

Conclusions

Results demonstrated different perspectives and priorities between patients and clinicians, with clinicians more focused on physical aspects. These differences must be considered when treating individual patients, and within multidisciplinary treatment teams. The use of questionnaires that include multifaceted aspects of disease may result in improved asthma research.

Blueprint for harmonizing non-standardized disease registries to allow federated data analysis – prepare for the future

Real-world evidence from multinational disease registries is becoming increasingly important not only for confirming the results of randomised controlled trials, but also for identifying phenotypes, monitoring disease progression, predicting response to new drugs and early detection of rare side-effects. With new open-access technologies, it has become feasible to harmonise patient data from different disease registries and use it for data analysis without compromising privacy rules. Here, we provide a blueprint for how a clinical research collaboration can successfully use real-world data from existing disease registries to perform federated analyses. We describe how the European severe asthma clinical research collaboration SHARP (Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred) fulfilled the harmonisation process from nonstandardised clinical registry data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model and built a strong network of collaborators from multiple disciplines and countries. The blueprint covers organisational, financial, conceptual, technical, analytical and research aspects, and discusses both the challenges and the lessons learned. All in all, setting up a federated data network is a complex process that requires thorough preparation, but above all, it is a worthwhile investment for all clinical research collaborations, especially in view of the emerging applications of artificial intelligence and federated learning.

Harmonising real-world patient data from diverse registries to allow federated analyses is a complex process that requires thorough preparation but is above all a valuable investment, especially in view of emerging applications of artificial intelligencehttps://bit.ly/3NEKKnV

Four Aspects Affecting Health Economic Decision Models and Their Validation

Health care decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness analysis based on health economic decision models for policy decisions regarding coverage and price negotiation for medicines and medical devices. While validation of health economic decision models has always been considered important, many reviews of model-based cost-effectiveness studies report limitations regarding their validation. The current opinion paper discusses four aspects of current health economic decision modeling with relevance for future directions in model validation: increased use of complex models, international cooperation, open-source modeling, and stakeholder involvement. First, new, more complex clinical study designs and treatment strategies may require relatively complex model structures and/or input data analyses. Simultaneously, more widespread technical knowledge along with wider data availability have led to a broader range of model types. This puts extra requirements on model validation and transparency. Second, increased international cooperation of policy makers and, in particular, health technology assessment (HTA) authorities in performing model assessments is discussed in relation to the repeated use of health economic models (multi-use disease models). We argue such coordinated efforts may benefit model validity. Third, open-source modeling is discussed as one possible answer to increased transparency requirements. Finally, involvement of all relevant stakeholders throughout the whole decision process is an ongoing development that necessarily also includes health economic modeling. We argue this implies that model validity should be considered in a broader perspective, with more focus on conceptual modeling, model transparency, accuracy requirements, and choice of relevant model outcomes than previously.

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.

Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low - a call to action

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role in the evaluation and approval of new technologies. They determine their value within a health system so to promote equitable, quality care with available healthcare resources. Many HTA agencies have some mechanism for involving patients in their processes, but there is great variability and an absence of comprehensive, robust practices for involvement. The accelerating pace of medical innovation creates a need to improve the depth and breadth of patient involvement in the HTA process.

MAIN BODY

In this 'Call to action', we present ideas from three HTA expert commentaries calling for collaborative learning and to share innovative ideas for changes in HTA. We also draw on examples of HTA agencies creatively pursuing this goal. We propose a 'Call to action' for HTA stakeholders to undertake serious dialogue with patient advocates aimed at creating shared goals. HTA agencies can use these goals to ensure meaningful patient involvement at every step of the HTA process. Five elements are explored. In 'Recognizing the value of shared purpose', we highlight examples of HTA agencies that have patients working in partnership with medical practitioners and HTA staff. Results include improved processes that instil confidence. 'Committing to patient involvement as part of HTA culture' highlights several initiatives aimed at changes in HTA organisational culture to be more inclusive of patients. In 'Aligning patient and HTA goals' we cite work in Belgium and New Zealand which places a greater emphasis on quality of life rather than life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. By 'Integrating patient involvement at every step of the HTA process' patients can make vital contributions at every stage of the HTA process. We provide two examples of where HTA agencies have successfully involved patients early in the process in order to broaden the scope of evaluations. 'Developing a common language and working together' can support transformative dialogue through 'unified language'.

CONCLUSION

The authors of this commentary ask that agencies and stakeholders involved in HTA take up this call to work together for visionary and transformative elevation of the voice of patients in HTA worldwide.

Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline

This document provides clinical recommendations for the management of severe asthma. Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Task Force's questions. The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary Task Force of asthma experts, who made specific recommendations on six specific questions. After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions, the Task Force made the following recommendations: 1) suggest using anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α for severe uncontrolled adult eosinophilic asthma phenotypes; 2) suggest using a blood eosinophil cut-point ≥150 μL^-1 to guide anti-IL-5 initiation in adult patients with severe asthma; 3) suggest considering specific eosinophil (≥260 μL^-1) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (≥19.5 ppb) cut-offs to identify adolescents or adults with the greatest likelihood of response to anti-IgE therapy; 4) suggest using inhaled tiotropium for adolescents and adults with severe uncontrolled asthma despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4-5 or National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) step 5 therapies; 5) suggest a trial of chronic macrolide therapy to reduce asthma exacerbations in persistently symptomatic or uncontrolled patients on GINA step 5 or NAEPP step 5 therapies, irrespective of asthma phenotype; and 6) suggest using anti-IL-4/13 for adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and for those with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma regardless of blood eosinophil levels. These recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

Biomarker development in asthma from a patient's perspective

I was finally diagnosed in 1981 with asthma after having had lung problems since childhood. My asthma diagnosis involved a hospital admission to do a lot of tests. At that time, I had no idea what it was all about. I thought that a hospital admission was normal for diagnosing asthma. I underwent allergy tests, bronchoscopy, contrast fluid chest radiography and a lot of blood and sputum tests… and many more. But what exactly they were looking for and what it meant, I had no idea.

A patient discusses asthma biomarkers in relation to her experience of living with asthma, and her work as a patient advocate for @EuropeanLunghttp://bit.ly/2lQPVtU

ERS/EAACI statement on severe exacerbations in asthma in adults: facts, priorities and key research questions

Despite the use of effective medications to control asthma, severe exacerbations in asthma are still a major health risk and require urgent action on the part of the patient and physician to prevent serious outcomes such as hospitalisation or death. Moreover, severe exacerbations are associated with substantial healthcare costs and psychological burden, including anxiety and fear for patients and their families. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) set up a task force to search for a clear definition of severe exacerbations, and to also define research questions and priorities. The statement includes comments from patients who were members of the task force.

The Missing Stakeholder Group: Why Patients Should be Involved in Health Economic Modelling

Evaluations of healthcare interventions, e.g. new drugs or other new treatment strategies, commonly include a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) that is based on the application of health economic (HE) models. As end users, patients are important stakeholders regarding the outcomes of CEAs, yet their knowledge of HE model development and application, or their involvement therein, is absent. This paper considers possible benefits and risks of patient involvement in HE model development and application for modellers and patients. An exploratory review of the literature has been performed on stakeholder-involved modelling in various disciplines. In addition, Dutch patient experts have been interviewed about their experience in, and opinion about, the application of HE models. Patients have little to no knowledge of HE models and are seldom involved in HE model development and application. Benefits of becoming involved would include a greater understanding and possible acceptance by patients of HE model application, improved model validation, and a more direct infusion of patient expertise. Risks would include patient bias and increased costs of modelling. Patient involvement in HE modelling seems to carry several benefits as well as risks. We claim that the benefits may outweigh the risks and that patients should become involved.