Herpes zoster and Janus kinase inhibition in rheumatology and gastroenterology patients: managing risk and vaccination.

Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ulcerative colitis (UC), have an increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ) infection, compared with the general population. This risk is further increased by the use of immunomodulatory therapies, with a higher incidence of HZ reported in patients receiving Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, compared with those receiving other immunomodulatory or biological therapies. Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of RA, PsA and UC. In this narrative review, we discuss the effects of tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors on HZ risk in patients with RA, PsA and UC, and strategies for risk management. We also discuss current UK guidelines for HZ vaccination in healthy individuals and patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, consider selected international guidelines, and review current HZ vaccination strategies.

The power of language: how to bridge the gap between healthcare research and patients - a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The value of patient involvement to the design, conduct, and outcomes of healthcare research is increasingly being recognized. Patient involvement also provides greater patient accessibility and contribution to research. However, the use of inaccessible and technical language when communicating with patients is a barrier to effective patient involvement. METHODS: We analyzed peer-reviewed and gray literature on how language is used in communication between healthcare researchers and patients. We used this analysis to generate a set of recommendations for healthcare researchers about using more inclusive and accessible language when involving patients in research. This scoping review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. RESULTS: Four major themes about the use of language were developed from the literature analysis and were used to develop the set of recommendations. These recommendations include guidance on using standardized terminology and plain language when involving patients in healthcare research. They also discuss the implementation of co-development practices, patient support initiatives, and researcher training, as well as ways to improve emotional awareness and the need for greater equality, diversity, and inclusion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The use of inclusive, empathetic, and clear language can encourage patients to be involved in research and, once they are involved, make them feel like equal, empowered, and valued partners. Working toward developing processes and guidelines for the use of language that enables an equal partnership between researchers and patients is critical.

Patient and public involvement is when patients, carers, and the public are included as partners in all stages of healthcare research. Patient involvement has been shown to have a positive impact on people and on research itself, but researchers often use language that is complicated, confusing, or unsuitable for patients. This can lead to less meaningful patient involvement in research.Our work looked at two areas: (1) how using unsuitable language can be a barrier to effective and meaningful patient involvement; and (2) what can be done to help improve communication between healthcare researchers and patients.We started by finding out what has already been researched and published in these areas. We looked in medical journal databases for articles that were relevant to the topic. We also searched Google and the websites of relevant organizations. From looking at these sources, we found four common themes. These themes are: (1) lack of standardized terminology for patients involved in research; (2) consistent overuse of technical, scientific, and medical language; (3) positive outcomes of using language to show emotional understanding; and (4) language as a powerful tool for promoting diversity, equality, and inclusion of patients involved in research.Using these themes, we then developed seven recommendations to help improve how healthcare researchers and patients communicate with each other. These recommendations are: (1) using standardized terminology; (2) using plain language; (3) co-developing patient information; (4) providing patient training, mentoring, and support; (5) introducing researcher training; (6) having emotional awareness; and (7) improving equality, diversity, and inclusion.A graphical plain language summary can be found as Supplementary material for this article.

Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has a well-established infrastructure in the UK, and while there has been good progress within pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored research, further improvements are still needed. This review aims to share learnings from quality assessments of historical PPI projects within Pfizer UK to inform future projects and drive PPI progress in the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN AND SETTING: Internal assessments of Pfizer UK PPI projects were conducted to identify all relevant projects across the medicines development continuum between 2017 and 2021. Five sample projects were developed into case studies. OUTCOME MEASURE: Retrospective quality assessments were performed using the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) tool. Recommendations for improvement were developed. RESULTS: Retrospective case study analysis and quality framework assessment revealed benefits of PPI to both Pfizer UK and to external partners, as well as challenges and learnings to improve future practice. Recommendations for improvement based on these findings focused on processes and procedures for PPI, group dynamics and diversity for PPI activities, sharing of expertise, the importance of bidirectional and timely feedback, and the use of understandable language in materials. CONCLUSIONS: PPI in medicines development is impactful and beneficial but is still being optimised in the pharmaceutical industry. Using the PFMD PEQG tool to define gaps, share learnings and devise recommendations for improvement helps to ensure that PPI is genuine and empowering, rather than tokenistic. Ultimately, these recommendations should be acted on to further embed PPI as an integral part of medicines development and health research within the pharmaceutical industry. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.