Search

Context: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in parallel with clinical evidence to inform decisions made by industry, clinicians, regulators, health technology assessment bodies and other health-care decision-makers. In addition, PRO data can also guide shared decision making and individual patient choice. Yet, the quality of many PROs in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal and requires improvement to add value to health care and policy decision making., Objective: To show how the integration of the patient and/or patient advocate at all stages of PRO development can help to realize the full potential of PROs., Methods: We examined the literature to show that the patient voice is often absent from the planning and implementation of PROs in cancer clinical trials. Good practice examples from the literature were combined with guideline recommendations, training or educational resources, and our own experience to create detailed practical steps for the inclusion of patients and/or patient advocates throughout PRO development., Results: Patient or patient advocates can play an active role in shaping PROs that are meaningful to the patient. They can contribute to content, choice of medium and implementation in a way that may support PRO completion and minimize missing data. Patients and their advocates can work to ensure PRO findings are disseminated appropriately in a way that is accessible to patients., Conclusion: This practical guidance aims to optimize PRO development and implementation in clinical trials, resulting in robust, relevant data that reflect the patient experience and that support decisions made by all stakeholders involved in research and health care., (© 2019 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Meaningful patient engagement (PE) in medicines development and during the life cycle of a product requires all stakeholders have a clear understanding of respective expectations., Objective: A qualitative survey was undertaken to understand stakeholder expectations., Design: The survey explored 4 themes from the perspective of each stakeholder group: meaning, views, expectations and priorities for PE. Participants were grouped into 7 categories: policymakers/regulators; health-care professionals (HCPs); research funders; payers/purchasers/HTA; patients/patient representatives; pharmaceutical/life sciences industry; and academic researchers., Results: Fifty-nine interviews were conducted across a range of geographies, PE experience and job seniority/role. There was consensus across stakeholders on meaning of PE; importance of promoting PE to a higher level than currently; need for a more structured process and guidance. There was little consensus on stakeholder expectations and roles. Policymakers/regulators were expected by others to drive PE, create a framework and facilitate PE, provide guidelines of good practice and connect stakeholders, but this expectation was not shared by the policymakers/regulators group. HCPs were seen as the link between patients and other stakeholders, but HCPs did not necessarily share this view., Discussion and Conclusions: Despite broad stakeholder categories, clear themes emerged: there is no "leader"; no stakeholder has a clear view on how to meaningfully engage with patients; there are educational gaps; and a structure and guidance for PE is urgently required. Given the diversity of stakeholders, there needs to be multistakeholder collaborative leadership. Effective collaboration requires consensus on roles, responsibilities and expectations to synergize efforts to deliver meaningful PE in medicines life cycle., (© 2018 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Key points: Patient authorship is a new topic in medical publishing, with the number of patient‐authored publications growing rapidly.Publication stakeholders (e.g., editors, publishers, funders, researchers) should be aware of the legitimacy of patient authorship.Practical actions can be taken by different publication stakeholders to encourage and support patient authorship—ethically and effectively.Patient authorship can contribute to enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in medical publishing.Research on patient authorship could be strengthened with consensus on publication tagging practices (e.g., affiliation terms) and the use of artificial intelligence.A plain language summary of this article and the GRIPP2 form for reporting patient involvement are available as supplementary information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital health solutions have the potential to complement traditional healthcare approaches and deliver improved health outcomes, but there are system-wide challenges that need to be addressed. These include fragmentation of the digital health landscape, regulatory processes that lack the agility to accommodate the fast pace of digital health advances, and inadequate transparency around data sharing and data governance. All of these challenges have led to mistrust, limited understanding and sharing of best practices, a lack of digital education and awareness, and insufficient patient and public engagement and involvement. In this paper, we argue that for digital health solutions to fulfil their potential, there needs to be a significant increase in early, meaningful, and sustained engagement with the people they intend to benefit. The uptake as well as the impact of digital solutions created in partnership with patients for patients are greater and more relevant to the communities they address. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of patients in cancer research is undergoing a significant evolution as all stakeholders seek to enhance the level of direct patient involvement in the design and development of clinical trials. However, there are significant hurdles that patients, patient advocates, laboratory researchers, clinical investigators, and funding institutions must overcome to implement relevant patient involvement in all aspects of biomedical research. By using innovative grant funding models, philanthropic organizations can lead the field in overcoming these challenges. Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees and patients in designing and conducting research projects. This paper presents a reflective case study of efforts to advance the field of patient involvement in clinical research. Methods: The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network, to create a set of guiding documents and resources aimed at public and private health research funders within various national, international, and therapeutic settings. This effort included a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and an iterative development process. Results: To date, RTFCCR has completed and disseminated three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates. These resources have already generated three major ongoing initiatives at RTFCCR: (1) inclusion of these recommendations in the foundation's funding guidelines; patient input to prioritization of research focus areas; and in topic selection for calls for proposals; (2) direct involvement of patient experts in the grant review process; and (3) a commitment to support high impact clinical research projects in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Moreover, the foundation has launched a partnership with the International Cancer Research Partnership, the global alliance of cancer research organizations. Conclusion: By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research. This approach will continue to develop as it is implemented and shared with partners throughout the world. Plain English summary: The Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees (scientists) and patients in designing and conducting research projects. The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network. Patvocates conducted a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and their collective experience as patient advocates. This work generated a set of guiding documents and resources. These resources are to help public and private health research funders to better understand current challenges and support scientists and patients through their funding mechanisms. Three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates are now available for download at the RTFCCR website: https://www.risingtide-foundation.org/clinical-cancer-research/patient-engagement#start Delivering a paradigm change involves not only the introduction of additional requirements and rules, but also enhanced education of patients and investigators. By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research. Development and implementation of consistent policies and procedures for the integration of the patients' view in the design and review of research proposals is needed for funders as well as for research institutes, both public and private. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precision oncology has made remarkable strides in improving clinical outcomes, offering hope to patients with historically difficult-to-treat, as well as rare or neglected cancers. However, despite rapid advancement, precision oncology has reached a critical juncture, where patient access to these life-saving medicines may be hampered by strict requirements by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for assessing new medicines against appropriate comparator. The very nature of precision oncology—matching a tumour's unique molecular alterations to targeted therapies predicted to elicit response—can make the use of RCTs very difficult, as only a very small number of patients might qualify for a given therapy within a traditional clinical trial setting. Real-world evidence (RWE) has been accepted for regulatory decision-making but has yet to reach widespread acceptance by HTA bodies. As the oncology treatment landscape has evolved towards favouring the concept of precision oncology, there is a growing need for flexibility in the way HTA bodies evaluate new medicines. We must acknowledge that current assessment methodologies can limit access to life-changing medicines for many patients who have no alternative options and that a growing number of precision oncology medicines with proven clinical benefits in rare tumours cannot be reasonably evaluated using traditional methodologies. The objectives of this paper are to advocate a change in mindset regarding best practices in drug assessment models and to propose alternative approaches when considering indications for which RWE is the most compelling data source available. • RCTs are often not feasible for medicines that target rare genomic alterations. • Current HTA processes may not fully recognise the potential of these new drugs. • As a result, access is difficult for patients with otherwise limited options. • Real-world evidence can provide relevant data for precision oncology medicines. • Such data should be considered as an additional approach to traditional HTA models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The value of patient involvement (PI) in medicines research and development (R&D) is increasingly recognized by all health stakeholders. Despite numerous ongoing PI initiatives, PI so far lacks structure and consistency in approach. Limited formal documentation of PI activities further hampers the sharing of experience and learnings, preventing timely and systematic implementation. This article summarizes the outcomes of several multistakeholder discussions during 2013-2016 in a practical roadmap for PI in medicines R&D. The roadmap highlights specific opportunities for PI along the 4 key stages of the medicines R&D life cycle and is illustrated with concrete examples. This roadmap’s aim is to provide a tool to facilitate PI during medicines research and development and is being shared to encourage implementation and further refinement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of medicines is to improve patients' lives. Stakeholders involved in the development and lifecycle management of medicines agree that more effective patient involvement is needed to ensure that patient needs and priorities are identified and met. Despite the increasing number and scope of patient involvement initiatives, there is no accepted master framework for systematic patient involvement in industry-led medicines research and development, regulatory review, or market access decisions. Patient engagement is very productive in some indications, but inconsistent and fragmentary on a broader level. This often results in inefficient drug development, increasing evidence requirements, lack of patient-centered outcomes that address unmet medical needs and facilitate adherence, and consequently, lack of required therapeutic options and high costs to society and involved parties. Improved patient involvement can drive the development of innovative medicines that deliver more relevant and impactful patient outcomes and make medicine development faster, more efficient, and more productive. It can lead to better prioritization of early research; improved resource allocation; improved trial protocol designs that better reflect patient needs; and, by addressing potential barriers to patient participation, enhanced recruitment and retention. It may also improve trial conduct and lead to more focused, economically viable clinical trials. At launch and beyond, systematic patient involvement can also improve the ongoing benefit-risk assessment, ensure that public funds prioritize medicines of value to patients, and further the development of the medicine. Progress toward a universal framework for patient involvement requires a joint, precompetitive, and international approach by all stakeholders, working in true partnership to consolidate outputs from existing initiatives, identify gaps, and develop a comprehensive framework. It is essential that all stakeholders participate to drive adoption and implementation of the framework and to ensure that patients and their needs are embedded at the heart of medicines development and lifecycle management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]