Harnessing health plan enrollee data to boost membership in patient-powered research networks.

BACKGROUND: Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) have been employing and exploring different methods to engage patients in research activities specific to their conditions. One way to intensify patient engagement is to partner with payer stakeholders. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two common payer-initiated outreach methods (postal mail versus email) for inviting prospective candidates to participate in their initiatives. METHODS: This descriptive study linked members of a nationally-representative private insurance network to four disease-specific PPRN registries. Eligible members meeting diagnostic criteria who were not registered in any of the four PPRNs by 02/28/2018 were identified, and randomly assigned to either the mail or email group. They were contacted in two outreach efforts: first on 04/23/2018, and one follow-up on 05/23/2018. New registration rates by outreach method as of 8/31/2018 were determined by relinking. We compared registrants and non-registrants using bivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14,571 patients were assigned to the mail group, and 14,574 to the email group. Invitations were successfully delivered to 13,834 (94.9%) mail group and 10,205 (70.0%) email group members. A small but significantly larger proportion of mail group members, (n = 78; 0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] {0.42-0.67%}) registered in PPRNs relative to the email group (n = 24; 0.16, 95% CI {0.11-0.25%}), p < 0.001. Members who registered had more comorbidities, were more likely to be female, and had marginally greater medical utilization, especially emergency room visits, relative to non-registrants (52.0% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: A health plan outreach to invite members to participate in PPRNs was modestly effective. Regular mail outperformed less costly email. Providing more value-add to participants may be a possible way to increase recruitment success.

Clinical Characteristics of an Internet-Based Cohort of Patient-Reported Diagnosis of Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis and Microscopic Polyangiitis: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Utilizing the traditional centers of excellence approach to conduct clinical trials involving rare diseases remains challenging. Patient-based registries have been shown to be both feasible and valid in several other diseases. OBJECTIVE: This report outlines the clinical characteristics of a large internet registry cohort of participants with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis. METHODS: Patients with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis in an internet-based prospective longitudinal cohort (from the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network) were included. Data on symptoms, diagnostic testing, and treatment were collected using standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: The study compared patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n=762) and patients with microscopic polyangiitis (n=164). Of the cohort, 97.7% (904/925) reported the diagnosis had been confirmed by a physician. Compared to microscopic polyangiitis, patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis reported significantly more ear, nose, and throat manifestations (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 641/723, 88.7%; microscopic polyangiitis: 89/164, 54.3%; z=10.42, P<.001), fevers (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 325/588, 55.3%; microscopic polyangiitis: 64/139, 46.0%; z=1.96, P=.05), joint involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 549/688, 79.8%; microscopic polyangiitis: 106/154, 68.8%; z=2.96, P=.003), and pulmonary involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 523/734, 71.3%; microscopic polyangiitis: 90/154, 58.4%; z=3.13, P=.002). Compared to microscopic polyangiitis, patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis reported significantly less renal involvement (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 457/743, 61.5%; microscopic polyangiitis: 135/163, 82.8%; z=-5.18, P<.001) and renal transplantation (granulomatosis with polyangiitis: 10/721, 1.4%; microscopic polyangiitis: 7/164, 4.3%; z=-2.43, P=.02). Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity was reported in 94.2% (652/692) of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and 96.1% (147/153) of patients with microscopic polyangiitis. A biopsy showing vasculitis was reported in 77.0% (562/730) of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and 81.9% (131/160) of patients with microscopic polyangiitis. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, internet-based cohort of patients with a self-reported diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis, disease manifestations were consistent with expectations for each type of vasculitis. Given the rarity of these and other vasculitides, conducting some types of research through internet-based registries may provide an efficient alternative to inperson, center-of-excellence clinical trials.

Data linkages between patient-powered research networks and health plans: a foundation for collaborative research.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-powered research networks (PPRNs) are a valuable source of patient-generated information. Diagnosis code-based algorithms developed by PPRNs can be used to query health plans' claims data to identify patients for research opportunities. Our objective was to implement privacy-preserving record linkage processes between PPRN members' and health plan enrollees' data, compare linked and nonlinked members, and measure disease-specific confirmation rates for specific health conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive study identified overlapping members from 4 PPRN registries and 14 health plans. Our methods for the anonymous linkage of overlapping members used secure Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, 1-way, cryptographic hash functions. Self-reported diagnoses by PPRN members were compared with claims-based computable phenotypes to calculate confirmation rates across varying durations of health plan coverage. RESULTS: Data for 21 616 PPRN members were hashed. Of these, 4487 (21%) members were linked, regardless of any expected overlap with the health plans. Linked members were more likely to be female and younger than nonlinked members were. Irrespective of duration of enrollment, the confirmation rates for the breast or ovarian cancer, rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, or vasculitis PPRNs were 72%, 50%, 75%, and 67%, increasing to 91%, 67%, 93%, and 80%, respectively, for members with ≥5 years of continuous health plan enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that PPRN membership and health plan data can be successfully linked using privacy-preserving record linkage methodology, and used to confirm self-reported diagnosis. Identifying and confirming self-reported diagnosis of members can expedite patient selection for research opportunities, shorten study recruitment timelines, and optimize costs.