Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials.

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. METHODS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. RESULTS: Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. CONCLUSIONS: A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

What do stakeholders expect from patient engagement: Are these expectations being met?

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.

Value to Whom? The Patient Voice in the Value Discussion.

BACKGROUND: Professional societies and other organizations have recently taken a visible role trying to define treatment value via value frameworks and assessments, providing payer or provider recommendations, and potentially impacting patient access. Patient perspectives routinely differ from those of other stakeholders. Yet, it is not always apparent that patients were engaged in value framework development or assessment. OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and content of the National Health Council's (NHC's) Rubric, a tool that includes criteria for evaluation of value frameworks specifically with regard to patient-centeredness and meaningful patient engagement. METHODS: The NHC held a multistakeholder, invitational roundtable in Washington, DC, in 2016. Participants reviewed existing patient-engagement rubrics, discussed experiences with value frameworks, debated and thematically grouped hallmark patient-centeredness characteristics, and developed illustrative examples of the characteristics. These materials were organized into the rubric, and subsequently vetted via multistakeholder peer review. RESULTS: The resulting rubric describes six domains of patient-centered value frameworks: partnership, transparency, inclusiveness, diversity, outcomes, and data sources. Each domain includes specific examples illustrating how patient engagement and patient-centeredness can be operationalized in value framework processes. CONCLUSIONS: The NHC multistakeholder roundtable's recommendations are captured in the NHC's Rubric to assess value framework and model patient-centeredness and patient engagement. The Rubric is a tool that will be refined over time on the basis of feedback from patient, patient group, framework developer, and other stakeholder-use experiences.

Advancing Value Assessment in the United States: A Multistakeholder Perspective.

Rising costs without perceived proportional improvements in quality and outcomes have motivated fundamental shifts in health care delivery and payment to achieve better value. Aligned with these efforts, several value assessment frameworks have been introduced recently to help providers, patients, and payers better understand the potential value of drugs and other interventions and make informed decisions about their use. Given their early stage of development, it is imperative to evaluate these efforts on an ongoing basis to identify how best to support and improve them moving forward. This article provides a multistakeholder perspective on the key limitations and opportunities posed by the current value assessment frameworks and areas of and actions for improvement. In particular, we outline 10 fundamental guiding principles and associated strategies that should be considered in subsequent iterations of the existing frameworks or by emerging initiatives in the future. Although value assessment frameworks may not be able to meet all the needs and preferences of stakeholders, we contend that there are common elements and potential next steps that can be supported to advance value assessment in the United States.

Measuring and Demonstrating the Value of Patient Engagement Across the Medicines Lifecycle: A Patient Engagement Impact Measurement Framework.

As the pharmaceutical industry advances towards more patient-focused product development, it is well recognized that meaningful patient engagement is required for the authentic patient voice to inform research and regulatory decisions. However, for this to happen systematically and consistently across the industry, there is still a need to evaluate and communicate the value of patient engagement to all stakeholders. Evaluating engagement also informs process improvement, elevating the value further. We describe the development of a conceptual, yet practical, framework for measuring the impact of engagement to achieve this. The framework depicts how metrics can be used to capture and assess the inputs, outputs, and value of patient engagement across the medicines lifecycle. Although conceived in the context of systems and processes within one company, Novartis, the framework was co-created with patient advisors and designed to be both patient-relevant and adaptable for any pharmaceutical organization. The adoption and evolution of the framework will help to demonstrate the value-to patients, healthcare systems, and businesses-of integrating patient engagement into core activities across the medicines lifecycle. We encourage the pharmaceutical industry to apply impact measurement to build a robust evidence base, through measuring, publishing, and communicating the value of patient engagement.

Drug companies often talk to patients about making new medicines. This is called patient engagement. It helps to ensure that new medicines are right for the patients who will take them. Patient engagement is useful, but it does not always happen. Sometimes, companies make important decisions without involving patients. All drug companies need to understand why it is important to listen and learn what patients need. We made a practical way to measure this value. Our team included people from Novartis (a drug company), and patient groups. We developed a structure called the 'framework'. It measures: How we involve patients ('Inputs') What we learn from patients ('Outputs') How this benefits patients, healthcare systems, and companies ('Value') It can measure all steps from the start to the end of drug development. We invite other companies to use a similar approach and share what they measure. Doing this will show the value of patient engagement, to make it more standard practice.

Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.

Sharing clinical trial data can provide value to research participants and communities by accelerating the development of new knowledge and therapies as investigators merge data sets to conduct new analyses, reproduce published findings to raise standards for original research, and learn from the work of others to generate new research questions. Nonprofit funders, including disease advocacy and patient-focused organizations, play a pivotal role in the promotion and implementation of data sharing policies. Funders are uniquely positioned to promote and support a culture of data sharing by serving as trusted liaisons between potential research participants and investigators who wish to access these participants' networks for clinical trial recruitment. In short, nonprofit funders can drive policies and influence research culture. The purpose of this paper is to detail a set of aspirational goals and forward thinking, collaborative data sharing solutions for nonprofit funders to fold into existing funding policies. The goals of this paper convey the complexity of the opportunities and challenges facing nonprofit funders and the appropriate prioritization of data sharing within their organizations and may serve as a starting point for a data sharing toolkit for nonprofit funders of clinical trials to provide the clarity of mission and mechanisms to enforce the data sharing practices their communities already expect are happening.

Correction: Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/23011.].

Housing Orientations and Needs of Above-Average Length of Stay Hospitalized Psychiatric Patients.

A small number of severely and persistently mentally ill in-patients awaiting residential or long-stay facilities represent an obstacle to the efficient utilization of acute care beds. These facilities are costly and currently reputed to be contrary to recovery principles. In 2013, all acute psychiatric care wards in Montreal identified 194 in-patients who could be discharged to residential or long-term nursing care facilities. Program clinical professionals of regional residential facilities sent adapted standardized questionnaires to ward staff. Evaluators also collected the residential preferences of both staff and patients, and then made their own assessments. The 194 in-patients were mostly middle-aged single men. Over 80% had a psychosis diagnosis and half had judicial constraints. The staff evaluated that 71.1% could be discharged from hospital within 24 h. Of these, 55% could be referred to group resources with continuous 24 h, 7 days a week staff presence, 32% could be transferred to apartments with 7-day continuous or non-continuous staff presence, 12% could be transferred to institutional care and only 2% could be moved to an apartment of their own. Evaluator and ward staff residential preferences were highly similar, but differed with patient preferences, half of whom prefer their own apartment. Discrepancy between staff evaluations and patient preferences were higher for longer stay patients with more severe symptoms and comorbidity of personality disorders.

Recognizing that Evidence is Made, not Born.

Therapeutic product development, licensing and reimbursement may seem a well-oiled machine, but continuing high attrition rates, regulatory refusals, and patients' access issues suggest otherwise; despite serious efforts, gaps persist between stakeholders' stated evidence requirements and actual evidence supplied. Evidentiary deficiencies and/or human tendencies resulting in avoidable inefficiencies might be further reduced with fresh institutional cultures/mindsets, combined with a context-adaptable practices framework that integrates emerging innovations. Here, Structured Evidence Planning, Production, and Evaluation (SEPPE) posits that evidence be treated as something produced, much like other manufactured goods, for which "built-in quality" (i.e., "people" and "process") approaches have been successfully implemented globally. Incorporating proactive, iterative feedback-and-adjust loops involving key decision-makers at critical points could curtail avoidable evidence quality and decision hazards-pulling needed therapeutic products with high quality evidence of beneficial performance through to approvals. Critical for success, however, is dedicated, long-term commitment to systemic transformation.

Culture and Process Change as a Priority for Patient Engagement in Medicines Development.

Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) is a not-for-profit independent multinational coalition of patients, patient stakeholders, and the pharmaceutical industry with interests across diverse disease areas and conditions. PFMD aims to facilitate an integrated approach to medicines development with all stakeholders involved early in the development process. A key strength of the coalition that differentiates it from other groups that involve patients or patient groups is that PFMD has patient organizations as founding members, ensuring that the patient perspective is the starting point when identifying priorities and developing solutions to meet patients' needs. In addition, PFMD has from inception been formed as an equal collaboration among patient groups, patients, and pharmaceutical industry and has adopted a unique trans-Atlantic setup and scope that reflects its global intent. This parity extends to its governance model, which ensures at least equal or greater share of voice for patient group members. PFMD is actively inviting additional members and aims to expand the collaboration to include stakeholders from other sectors. The establishment of PFMD is particularly timely as patient engagement (PE) has become a priority for many health stakeholders and has led to a surge of mostly disconnected activities to deliver this. Given the current plethora of PE initiatives, an essential first step has been to determine, based on a comprehensive mapping, those strategic areas of most need requiring a focused initial effort from the perspective of all stakeholders. PFMD has identified four priority areas that will need to be addressed to facilitate implementation of PE. These are (1) culture and process change, (2) development of a global meta-framework for PE, (3) information exchange, and (4) training. This article discusses these priority themes and ongoing or planned PFMD activities within each.

Partnering With Patients in the Development and Lifecycle of Medicines: A Call for Action.

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.

Among other flaws, hypothetical migraine study lacks independent evaluation and patient engagement.

The hypothetical comparative effectiveness research case study on migraine treatments raises questions about how to disseminate the research findings. However, at least two important elements would be necessary to maximize the value and credibility of the findings. The study would need an independent evaluation to help decision makers understand the strength of the research, its place in the context of other existing evidence, and how the research could inform real-world decisions. Also, the patient community would have to be engaged throughout the research continuum to provide patients' perspective on living with chronic conditions and how various treatments affect them.

A proposal to protect privacy of health information while accelerating comparative effectiveness research.

Current laws, practices, and concerns about privacy inhibit access to health data for research. Barriers include inconsistent Institutional Review Board policies and complicated and costly procedures to obtain the consent of patients for release of their information. To realize the promise of comparative effectiveness research, it is essential to develop a new policy framework that will allow and encourage the use of health information in all forms--fully identifiable, partially anonymized, and deidentified. We propose that health data be made available for information-based research under a so-called research safe harbor. The arrangement would include strict data security controls, standards, and practices to be promulgated by the secretary of health and human services, and an annual third-party audit to ensure compliance.