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.

A multi-sensor wearable system for the assessment of diseased gait in real-world conditions

Introduction: Accurately assessing people's gait, especially in real-world conditions and in case of impaired mobility, is still a challenge due to intrinsic and extrinsic factors resulting in gait complexity. To improve the estimation of gait-related digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) in real-world scenarios, this study presents a wearable multi-sensor system (INDIP), integrating complementary sensing approaches (two plantar pressure insoles, three inertial units and two distance sensors). Methods: The INDIP technical validity was assessed against stereophotogrammetry during a laboratory experimental protocol comprising structured tests (including continuous curvilinear and rectilinear walking and steps) and a simulation of daily-life activities (including intermittent gait and short walking bouts). To evaluate its performance on various gait patterns, data were collected on 128 participants from seven cohorts: healthy young and older adults, patients with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and proximal femur fracture. Moreover, INDIP usability was evaluated by recording 2.5-h of real-world unsupervised activity. Results and discussion: Excellent absolute agreement (ICC >0.95) and very limited mean absolute errors were observed for all cohorts and digital mobility outcomes (cadence ≤0.61 steps/min, stride length ≤0.02 m, walking speed ≤0.02 m/s) in the structured tests. Larger, but limited, errors were observed during the daily-life simulation (cadence 2.72-4.87 steps/min, stride length 0.04-0.06 m, walking speed 0.03-0.05 m/s). Neither major technical nor usability issues were declared during the 2.5-h acquisitions. Therefore, the INDIP system can be considered a valid and feasible solution to collect reference data for analyzing gait in real-world conditions.

Design and validation of a multi-task, multi-context protocol for real-world gait simulation

BACKGROUND

Measuring mobility in daily life entails dealing with confounding factors arising from multiple sources, including pathological characteristics, patient specific walking strategies, environment/context, and purpose of the task. The primary aim of this study is to propose and validate a protocol for simulating real-world gait accounting for all these factors within a single set of observations, while ensuring minimisation of participant burden and safety.

METHODS

The protocol included eight motor tasks at varying speed, incline/steps, surface, path shape, cognitive demand, and included postures that may abruptly alter the participants' strategy of walking. It was deployed in a convenience sample of 108 participants recruited from six cohorts that included older healthy adults (HA) and participants with potentially altered mobility due to Parkinson's disease (PD), multiple sclerosis (MS), proximal femoral fracture (PFF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or congestive heart failure (CHF). A novelty introduced in the protocol was the tiered approach to increase difficulty both within the same task (e.g., by allowing use of aids or armrests) and across tasks.

RESULTS

The protocol proved to be safe and feasible (all participants could complete it and no adverse events were recorded) and the addition of the more complex tasks allowed a much greater spread in walking speeds to be achieved compared to standard straight walking trials. Furthermore, it allowed a representation of a variety of daily life relevant mobility aspects and can therefore be used for the validation of monitoring devices used in real life.

CONCLUSIONS

The protocol allowed for measuring gait in a variety of pathological conditions suggests that it can also be used to detect changes in gait due to, for example, the onset or progression of a disease, or due to therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN-12246987.

Technical validation of real-world monitoring of gait: a multicentric observational study

INTRODUCTION

Existing mobility endpoints based on functional performance, physical assessments and patient self-reporting are often affected by lack of sensitivity, limiting their utility in clinical practice. Wearable devices including inertial measurement units (IMUs) can overcome these limitations by quantifying digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) both during supervised structured assessments and in real-world conditions. The validity of IMU-based methods in the real-world, however, is still limited in patient populations. Rigorous validation procedures should cover the device metrological verification, the validation of the algorithms for the DMOs computation specifically for the population of interest and in daily life situations, and the users' perspective on the device.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was designed to establish the technical validity and patient acceptability of the approach used to quantify digital mobility in the real world by Mobilise-D, a consortium funded by the European Union (EU) as part of the Innovative Medicine Initiative, aiming at fostering regulatory approval and clinical adoption of DMOs.After defining the procedures for the metrological verification of an IMU-based device, the experimental procedures for the validation of algorithms used to calculate the DMOs are presented. These include laboratory and real-world assessment in 120 participants from five groups: healthy older adults; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, proximal femoral fracture and congestive heart failure. DMOs extracted from the monitoring device will be compared with those from different reference systems, chosen according to the contexts of observation. Questionnaires and interviews will evaluate the users' perspective on the deployed technology and relevance of the mobility assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been granted ethics approval by the centre's committees (London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics committee; Helsinki Committee, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Centre; Medical Faculties of The University of Tübingen and of the University of Kiel). Data and algorithms will be made publicly available.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN (12246987).

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The clinical effectiveness of intensive management in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: The titrate trial

OBJECTIVES

Many trials have shown that intensive management is effective in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). But its benefits are unproven for the large number of RA patients seen in routine care who have established, moderately active RA and are already taking conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). The TITRATE trial studied whether these patients also benefit from intensive management and, in particular, achieve more remissions.

METHODS

A 12-month multicentre individually randomised trial compared standard care with monthly intensive management appointments which was delivered by specially trained healthcare professionals and incorporated monthly clinical assessments, medication titration and psychosocial support. The primary outcome was 12-month remission assessed using the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR). Secondary outcomes included fatigue, disability, harms and healthcare costs. Intention-to-treat multivariable logistic- and linear regression analyses compared treatment arms with multiple imputation used for missing data.

RESULTS

459 patients were screened and 335 were randomised (168 intensive management; 167 standard care); 303 (90%) patients provided 12-month outcomes. Intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions compared to standard care (32% vs 18%, p = 0.004). Intensive management also significantly increased remissions using a range of alternative remission criteria and increased patients with DAS28-ESR low disease activity scores. (48% vs 32%, p = 0.005). In addition it substantially reduced fatigue (mean difference -18; 95% CI: -24, -11, p<0.001). There was no evidence that serious adverse events (intensive management =15 vs standard care =11) or other adverse events (114 vs 151) significantly increase with intensive management.

INTERPRETATION

The trial shows that intensive management incorporating psychosocial support delivered by specially trained healthcare professions is effective in moderately active established RA. More patients achieve remissions, there were greater improvements in fatigue, and there were no more harms.