Search

Introduction: Given the rapid increase in novel treatments for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), this patient preference study aimed to establish which treatment attributes matter most to MM patients and evaluate discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing weighting (SW) as two elicitation methods for quantifying patients’ preferences. Methods: A survey incorporating DCE and SW was disseminated among European MM patients. The survey included attributes and levels informed by a previous qualitative study with 24 MM patients. Latent class and mixed logit models were used to estimate the DCE attribute weights and descriptive analyses were performed to derive SW weights. MM patients and patient organisations provided extensive feedback during survey development. Results: 393 MM patients across 21 countries completed the survey (Myears since diagnosis=6; Mprevious therapies=3). Significant differences (p<.01) between participants’ attribute weights were revealed depending on participants’ prior therapy experience, and their experience with side-effects and symptoms. Multivariate analyses showed that participants across the three MM patient classes identified via the latent class model differed regarding their past number of therapies (F=4.772, p=.009). Patients with the most treatments (class 1) and those with the least treatments (class 3) attached more value to life expectancy versus quality of life-related attributes such as pain, mobility and thinking problems. Conversely, patients with intermediary treatment experience (class 2) attached more value to quality of life-related attributes versus life expectancy. Participants highlighted the difficulty of trading-off between life expectancy and quality of life and between physical and mental health. Participants expressed a need for greater psychological support to cope with their symptoms, treatment side-effects, and uncertainties. With respect to patients’ preferences for the DCE or SW questions, 42% had no prefe, IMI-PREFER

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Governed through the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) since 1995, the current medical R&D system requires significant trade-offs between innovation and high monopoly prices for patented drugs that restrict patient access to medicines. Since its implementation, few amendments have been made to the original TRIPS agreement to allow low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to facilitate access by generic manufacturers through flexible provisions, such as compulsory licensing and parallel import. Although a useful policy tool in theory, the routine use of TRIPS flexibilities in LMICs in the procurement of new essential medicines (EMs) is regarded as a ‘last resort’ due to strong political response in high-income countries (HICs) and new trade agreements’ restrictions. In this context, access-oriented biomedical Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have emerged. More recently, leading multilateral health organizations have recommended different types of intellectual property (IP) interventions, voluntary biomedical patent pools, as strategies to reduce prices and increase the diffusion of novel EMs in LMICs. Nevertheless, the recent Ebola and COVID-19 outbreaks highlight growing concerns regarding the use of TRIPS flexibilities and the limited success of voluntary mechanisms in promoting access to medicines in the Global South amidst health crises. This review aims at describing the state-of-the-art empirical research on IP-related options and voluntary mechanisms applied by emerging PPPs to guarantee timely and affordable access to EM in LMICs and reflect on both models as access paradigms. Some suggestions are put forward for future research paths on the basis of these analyses and in response to contemporary debates on waiving key IP rights on COVID-19 therapies, diagnostics, and vaccines., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

info:eu-repo/semantics/inPress

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This review can inform gene therapy developers on challenges that can be encountered when seeking market access. Moreover, it provides an overview of trends among challenges and potential solutions., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

SCOPUS: ed.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/inPress

EUPATI Belgium (EUPATI.be) is an informal gathering of local partners who are interested in improving patient involvement in healthcare innovation and medicines research and development. EUPATI.be brings together various stakeholders from different areas related to healthcare including patients, academia and industry. In doing so, we create an innovative collaborative approach where actors from different backgrounds work toward improving patient involvement in medical research, and putting the patient at the center of the Belgian healthcare system. Previously, we performed in-depth interviews with a small group of stakeholders on patient involvement. Here, we elaborate on our previous findings by using a nation-wide survey to inquire into Belgian stakeholders' perception on patient involvement. To this end, an electronic survey was available in French, Dutch and English, and accessible for 11 months. Twelve questions were asked, including 11 multiple choice questions and 1 open question. The latter was thematically analyzed according to the framework method. A total of 117 responses were registered and descriptive statistics were performed. The majority of respondents could be categorized into patient, academia and industry, whereas policy makers, payers, and healthcare professionals were underrepresented. We identified several barriers that hamper patient involvement, which were sometimes more reported by specific stakeholder groups. Next, we found that various stakeholders still consider patient involvement as a passive role, i.e. medical subject in a clinical trial. Respondents also reported that the role of the various stakeholders needed more clarification; this was also confirmed by the level of trust amongst the various stakeholders. Existing and the wish for more collaboration with the various stakeholders was reported by almost all respondents. Based on this survey, we can define the potential of involving patients in the medical research and development in, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The chapter assesses the role of IP in early-phase research public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the biomedical sector. Pooling complementary resources and expertise, and sharing risks and other burdens between public and private stakeholders, increases effectiveness of PPPs. Diverse social, economic, legal, regulatory, and scientific factors mean the PPP model is complex. The chapter considers knowledge-sharing mechanisms as a key aspect of IP management for shared goals of multiple-stakeholder partnerships. It sheds light on the different aspects that come into play when mapping how IP is generated, protected, and managed (e.g. shared) within and beyond early-phase research PPPs. It considers the relevant concepts and typology of early-phase research PPPs, including pre-competitive PPPs. Following this are sections on key issues, including the boundaries of the pre-competitive partnership; the role of trust within those PPPs; IP ownership and access rights, including the importance of transparent IP rules underlying knowledge sharing strategies; and the role of IP in the performance of PPPs. It concludes with recommendations for best practices to facilitate efficient and equitable knowledge-sharing., SCOPUS: ch.b, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: Patient involvement is often acknowledged as an important aspect of the lifecycle of medicines. Although different typologies exist, patient involvement has been described as the involvement of patients in decision-making regarding medicines. In view of the diversity of stakeholders and types of decisions in which patients might be involved, an in-depth understanding of these stakeholders' views toward involving patients in the lifecycle of medicines is essential. Methods: Interviews and surveys were used to gain insights into the perspectives and experiences of Belgian healthcare stakeholders. Interviews (n = 22) were conducted with academics, hospital pharmacists and representatives from health insurance funds, the Belgian reimbursement agency, pharmaceutical industry and patient organizations. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. Surveys (n = 108) were completed by hospital visitors and analyzed descriptively. Results: Despite an increasing amount of efforts to involve patients, interviewees labeled the level of actively involving patients as rather low and scattered across the different phases of the lifecycle of medicines. The main opportunities for patient involvement highlighted by interviewees were for: (i) informing early development decisions on which treatments to develop, (ii) clinical trial endpoint selection and (iii) clinical trial protocol design. However, remaining questions surrounding patient knowledge, and particularly how and which patients to involve represent important barriers toward implementing patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines. Of survey participants, 77% indicated to be willing to participate in patient preference studies. Reasons for participating mentioned most frequently were "to improve development of treatments," because "it is important to explore and listen to patient preferences" and "to have a voice as patients". Conclusions: The barriers identified in this study hamper transitioning patient invo, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Access to essential medicines is problematic for one third of all persons worldwide. The price of many medicines (i.e. drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics) is unaffordable to the majority of the population in need, especially in least-developed countries, but also increasingly in middle-income countries. Several innovative approaches, based on partnerships, intellectual property, and pricing, are used to stimulate innovation, promote healthcare delivery, and reduce global health disparities. No single approach suffices, and therefore stakeholders need to further engage in partnerships promoting knowledge and technology transfer in assuring essential medicines to be manufactured, authorized, and distributed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in an effort of making them available at affordable and acceptable conditions., SCOPUS: sh.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Knowledge-sharing strategies differ depending on the nature of the research objectives of public-private partnerships, but information about such strategies is often vague., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

info:eu-repo/semantics/published