Integrating the patient's voice into the research agenda for treatment of chemosensory disorders.

World-wide some 658 million people were infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and millions suffer from chemosensory impairment associated with long COVID. Current treatments for taste and smell disorders are limited. Involving patients has the potential to catalyze the dynamic exchange and development of new ideas and approaches to facilitate biomedical research and therapeutics. We assessed patients' perceptions of the efficacy of treatments for chemosensory impairment using an online questionnaire completed by 5,815 people in the US Logistic regression determined variables predictive of reported treatment efficacy for patients aged 18 to 24, 25 to 39, 40 to 60, and 60+ yrs. who were treated with nasal steroids, oral steroids, zinc, nasal rinse, smell training, theophylline, platelet-rich plasma, and Omega 3. The most consistent predictor was age, with the majority of those 40 to 60 and 60+ reporting that nasal steroids, oral steroids, zinc, nasal rinse, and smell training were only slightly effective or not effective at all. Many of these treatment strategies target regeneration and immune response, processes compromised by age. Only those under 40 reported more than slight efficacy of steroids or smell training. Findings emphasize the need to include patients of all ages in clinical trials. Older adults with olfactory impairment are at increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We speculate that olfactory impairment associated with long COVID introduces the potential for a significant rise in AD. Long COVID-associated chemosensory impairment increases the urgency for translational and clinical research on novel treatment strategies. Suggestions for high-priority areas for epidemiological, basic, and clinical research on chemosensory impairment follow.

Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.

Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.

Defining patient-centered research priorities in pediatric dermatology.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Patient and caregiver perspectives are critical in understanding dermatologic disease impact, presentation, and management in children. The Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) Patient Advisory Committee (PtAC), a group of patient representatives and parents of children with cutaneous disease, pursued a multistep, iterative, consensus-building process to identify comprehensive, high-priority research needs. METHODS: Building on discussions at the 2020 PeDRA Annual Conference, a research prioritization survey was developed and completed by PtAC members. Survey themes were aggregated and workshopped by the PtAC through a series of facilitated calls. Emerging priorities were refined in collaboration with additional PeDRA patient community members at the 2021 PeDRA Annual Conference. Subsequently, a final actionable list was agreed upon. RESULTS: Fourteen PtAC members (86.7% female) representing patients with alopecia areata, atopic dermatitis, vascular birthmarks, congenital melanocytic nevi, ectodermal dysplasias, epidermolysis bullosa, Gorlin syndrome, hidradenitis suppurativa, ichthyosis, pemphigus, psoriasis, Sturge-Weber syndrome, and pachyonychia congenita completed the survey. Following serial PtAC meetings, 60 research needs were identified from five domains: psychosocial challenges, health care navigation/disease management, causes/triggers, treatments to preserve or save life, and treatments to preserve or save quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Many pediatric dermatology research priorities align across affected communities and may drive meaningful, patient-centric initiatives and investigations.

Patient-Centered Core Impacts Sets (PC-CIS): What They Are and What They Are Not.

Letter to the Editor We are writing regarding the Innovations in Pharmacy commentary entitled, "Evidentiary Standards for Patient-Centered Core Impact Value Claims."(1) We thank Dr. Langley for commenting on the National Health Council's work on patient-centered core impact sets (PC-CIS), an initiative spearheaded by the nonprofit organization and its membership with multi-stakeholder representation and input.(2-4) While we have tried to be clear and transparent about the intent of PC-CIS, the commentary made it apparent to us we need to (and will) do more to be explicit about what a PC-CIS is and is not, and its possible downstream uses. We believe the PC-CIS concept was misrepresented in the commentary and want to provide clarification for readers so they can consider the merits of the initiative for themselves.

A Foundation for Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: Key Learnings from Past and Existing Approaches.

Despite growing commitment to patient centricity, challenges persist in consistently identifying the impacts of disease and/or treatment that patients report as most important to them, especially across myriad potential downstream uses. Patient-centered core impact sets (PC-CIS), disease-specific lists of impacts that patients report as most important, are proposed as a solution. But, PC-CIS is a new concept, currently in the pilot stage with patient advocacy groups. We conducted an environmental scan to explore PC-CIS conceptual overlap with past/existing efforts [e.g., core outcome sets (COS)] and to inform general feasibility for further development and operationalization. With guidance and advice from an expert advisory committee, we conducted a search of the literature and relevant websites. Identified resources were reviewed for alignment with the PC-CIS definition, and key insights were gleaned. We identified 51 existing resources and five key insights: (1) no existing efforts identified meet the definition of PC-CIS as we have specified it in terms of patient centricity, (2) existing COS-development efforts are a valuable source of foundational resources for PC-CIS, (3) existing health-outcome taxonomies can be augmented with patient-prioritized impacts to create a comprehensive impact taxonomy, (4) current approaches/methods can inadvertently exclude patient priorities from core lists/sets and will need to be modified to protect the patient voice, and (5) there is need for clarity and transparency on how patients were engaged in individual past/existing efforts. PC-CIS is conceptually unique from past/existing efforts in its explicit emphasis on patient leadership and being patient driven. However, PC-CIS development can leverage many resources from the past/existing related work.

Patient Insights into the Diagnosis of Smell and Taste Disorders in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of smell/taste dysfunction is necessary for appropriate medical care. This study examines factors affecting testing and diagnosis of smell/taste disorders . METHODS: The online USA Smell and Taste Patient Survey was made available to US patients with smell/taste disorders between April 6-20, 2022. 4,728 respondents were included. RESULTS: 1,791 (38%) patients reported a documented diagnosis. Patients most often saw family practitioners (34%), otolaryngologists (20%), and Taste/Smell clinics (6%) for smell/taste dysfunction. 64% of patients who went to Taste/Smell clinics received smell testing, followed by 39% of patients who saw otolaryngologists, and 31% of patients who saw family practitioners. Factors associated with increased odds of diagnosis included age (25-39 years (OR 2.97, 95% CI [2.25, 3.95]), 40-60 (OR 3.3, 95% CI [2.56, 4.52]), and >60 (OR 4.25, 95% CI [3.21, 5.67]) vs. 18-24 years), male gender (OR 1.26, 95% CI [1.07, 1.48]), insurance status (private (OR 1.61, 95% CI [1.15, 2.30]) or public (OR 2.03, 95% CI [1.42, 2.95]) vs. uninsured), perception of their family practitioner to be knowledgeable (OR 2.12, 95% CI [1.16, 3.90]), otolaryngologic evaluation (OR 6.17, 95% CI [5.16, 7.38]), and psychophysical smell testing (OR 1.77, 95% CI [1.42, 2.22]). CONCLUSION: Psychophysical testing, otolaryngologic evaluation, patient assessment of family practitioner knowledge level, insurance, age, and gender are significant factors in obtaining smell/taste dysfunction diagnosis. This study identifies barriers to diagnosis including lack of insurance or access to specialist evaluation and highlights the importance of educating family practitioners in diagnosis and management of patients with smell/taste disorders.

Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Patients and families are important contributors to the diagnostic team, but their perspectives are not reflected in current diagnostic measures. Patients/families can identify some breakdowns in the diagnostic process beyond the clinician's view. We aimed to develop a framework with patients/families to help organisations identify and categorise patient-reported diagnostic process-related breakdowns (PRDBs) to inform organisational learning. METHOD: A multi-stakeholder advisory group including patients, families, clinicians, and experts in diagnostic error, patient engagement and safety, and user-centred design, co-developed a framework for PRDBs in ambulatory care. We tested the framework using standard qualitative analysis methods with two physicians and one patient coder, analysing 2165 patient-reported ambulatory errors in two large surveys representing 25 425 US respondents. We tested intercoder reliability of breakdown categorisation using the Gwet's AC1 and Cohen's kappa statistic. We considered agreement coefficients 0.61-0.8=good agreement and 0.81-1.00=excellent agreement. RESULTS: The framework describes 7 patient-reported breakdown categories (with 40 subcategories), 19 patient-identified contributing factors and 11 potential patient-reported impacts. Patients identified breakdowns in each step of the diagnostic process, including missing or inaccurate main concerns and symptoms; missing/outdated test results; and communication breakdowns such as not feeling heard or misalignment between patient and provider about symptoms, events, or their significance. The frequency of PRDBs was 6.4% in one dataset and 6.9% in the other. Intercoder reliability showed good-to-excellent reliability in each dataset: AC1 0.89 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.90) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); kappa 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, to 0.66) to 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning.