Public and patient involvement: a survey on knowledge, experience and opinions among researchers within a precision oncology European project.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is slowly but steadily being implemented in all phases of clinical research. As part of the European project "Building Data Rich Clinical Trials" a survey was launched to investigate the knowledge, experiences and opinions on this topic of clinicians and researchers from seven European clinical and non-clinical centers (Cancer Core Europe). METHODS: An invitation to take part in a cross-sectional web survey was sent to 199 clinicians and researchers working in the field of precision oncology. The questionnaire was developed ad hoc because no existing questionnaires met the purpose of this study. The analysis takes account of whether respondents had experience on PPI or not. RESULTS: On a total of 101 respondents, this survey reveals that 76.2% of them knew about PPI before answering the questionnaire, 54.5% had experience in the previous five years and 86.1% were interested in a training course on this topic. PPI knowledge grew together with career seniority (peak of 86.5% for established career professionals), while the group most interested in a course was the early-career professionals (100.0%). Finally, the majority of respondents stated they had no training or education on PPI (67.3% of experienced and 82.6% of not-experienced respondents). CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows that most cancer researchers knew the term PPI, even if only a little more than half of them had any relative experience. Opinions on PPI benefits, negative effects, barriers and requirements differed between the groups of PPI experienced and not-experienced respondents, showing that experience itself can influence respondents' opinions. Most of respondents reported they would prefer a training course based on practical rather than theoretical tools.

Data monitoring roadmap. The experience of the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register.

INTRODUCTION: Over the years, disease registers have been increasingly considered a source of reliable and valuable population studies. However, the validity and reliability of data from registers may be limited by missing data, selection bias or data quality not adequately evaluated or checked. This study reports the analysis of the consistency and completeness of the data in the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register. METHODS: The Register collects, through a standardized Web-based Application, unique patients. Data are exported bimonthly and evaluated to assess the updating and completeness, and to check the quality and consistency. Eight clinical indicators are evaluated. RESULTS: The Register counts 77,628 patients registered by 126 centres. The number of centres has increased over time, as their capacity to collect patients. The percentages of updated patients (with at least one visit in the last 24 months) have increased from 33% (enrolment period 2000-2015) to 60% (enrolment period 2016-2022). In the cohort of patients registered after 2016, there were ≥ 75% updated patients in 30% of the small centres (33), in 9% of the medium centres (11), and in all the large centres (2). Clinical indicators show significant improvement for the active patients, expanded disability status scale every 6 months or once every 12 months, visits every 6 months, first visit within 1 year and MRI every 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Data from disease registers provide guidance for evidence-based health policies and research, so methods and strategies ensuring their quality and reliability are crucial and have several potential applications.

Temporal and spatial patterns in the prescriptions of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. Results from the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic scenario in multiple sclerosis (MS) has evolved over recent years with the progressive introduction of new drugs focused to better balance efficacy, safety and management requirements. The objective of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) over time and across different geographic areas, and the latency between disease onset, first Register center visit, disease diagnosis, and the start of treatment in a large cohort of persons with MS from the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register. METHODS: Up to 2022, the Register collected data from 124 centers on more than 78,000 persons, of whom 56,872 received at least one DMT prescription. Beside baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, we focused on DMT according to their efficacy distinguishing between moderate-efficacy (ME), or high-efficacy (HE). RESULTS: There was a higher probability of prescribing HE-DMT for increasing calendar years (multivariable odds ratio, OR=11.51 in 2021 or thereafter vs before 2000), in males (OR=1.08 vs females), patients with primary progressive with or without relapse (OR=3.00 vs clinically isolated syndrome), those with a higher Expanded Disability Status Scale score (OR=3.85 for >4 versus 0-1), and those from larger referral centers (OR=1.89 vs smaller ones). Conversely, higher age at onset was associated to a lower probability of prescribing HE-DMT (OR=0.74 at 40 or more vs <20 years). A trend to shorter times was observed in subsequent calendar years for disease onset, first center visit, diagnosis and first DMT prescription. No trend was detected based on the location of the geographic referral centers. The times between disease onset, first center visit, and diagnosis and the first DMT prescription showed significant decreases according to the year, while differences were less evident for the geographic areas. CONCLUSION: This study highlights some factors influencing the choice of HE-DMT, including aspects of both healthcare and clinical phenotype. The absence of a geographic pattern may indicate some homogeneity in DMT prescriptions across different Italian MS centers.