Management of hand osteoarthritis: from an US evidence-based medicine guideline to a European patient-centric approach.

Hand osteoarthritis is the most common joint condition and is associated with significant morbidity. It is of paramount importance that patients are thoroughly assessed and examined when complaining of hand stiffness, pain, deformity or disability and that the patient's concerns and expectations are addressed by the healthcare professional. In 2019 the American College of Rheumatology and Arthritis Foundation (ACR/AF) produced guidelines which included recommendations for the treatment of hand osteoarthritis. An ESCEO expert working group (including patients) was convened and composed this paper with the aim to assess whether these guidelines were appropriate for the treatment of hand osteoarthritis therapy in Europe and whether they met with the ESCEO patient-centered approach. Indeed, patients are the key stakeholders in healthcare and eliciting the patient's preference is vital in the context of an individual consultation but also for informing research and policy-making. The patients involved in this working group emphasised the often-neglected area of aesthetic changes in hand osteoarthritis, importance of developing pharmacological therapies which can alleviate pain and disability and the need of the freedom to choose which approach (out of pharmacological, surgical or non-pharmacological) they wished to pursue. Following robust appraisal, it was recommended that the ACR/AF guidelines were suitable for a European context (as described within the body of the manuscript) and it was emphasised that patient preferences are key to the success of individual consultations, future research and future policy-making.

Update on the ESCEO recommendation for the conduct of clinical trials for drugs aiming at the treatment of sarcopenia in older adults.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, an expert working group was convened under the auspices of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) and formulated consensus recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials for drugs to prevent or treat sarcopenia. AIMS: The objective of the current paper is to provide a 2020 update of the previous recommendations in accordance with the evidence that has become available since our original recommendations. METHODS: This paper is based on literature reviews performed by members of the ESCEO working group and followed up with face to face meetings organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations. RESULTS: The randomized placebo-controlled double-blind parallel-arm drug clinical trials should be the design of choice for both phase II and III trials. Treatment and follow-up should run at least 6 months for phase II and 12 months for phase III trials. Overall physical activity, nutrition, co-prescriptions and comorbidity should be recorded. Participants in these trials should be at least 70-years-old and present with a combination of low muscle strength and low physical performance. Severely malnourished individuals, as well as bedridden patients, patients with extremely limited mobility or individuals with physical limitations clearly attributable to the direct effect of a specific disease, should be excluded. Multiple outcomes are proposed for phase II trials, including, as example, physical performance, muscle strength and mass, muscle metabolism and muscle-bone interaction. For phase III trials, we recommend a co-primary endpoint of a measure of functional performance and a Patient Reported Outcome Measure. CONCLUSION: The working group has formulated consensus recommendations on specific aspects of trial design, and in doing so hopes to contribute to an improvement of the methodological robustness and comparability of clinical trials. Standardization of designs and outcomes would advance the field by allowing better comparison across studies, including performing individual patient-data meta-analyses, and different pro-myogenic therapies.

Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

There is increasing emphasis on patient-centred research to support the development, approval and reimbursement of health interventions that best meet patients' needs. However, there is currently little guidance on how meaningful patient engagement may be achieved. An expert working group, representing a wide range of stakeholders and disciplines, was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through a structured, collaborative process the group generated practical guidance to facilitate optimal patient engagement in clinical development and regulatory decisions. Patient engagement is a relational process. The principles outlined in this report were based on lessons learned through applied experience and on an extensive dialogue among the expert participants. This practice guidance forms a starting point from which tailoring of the approach to suit different chronic diseases may be undertaken.

Individual Trade-Offs Between Possible Benefits and Risks of Cancer Treatments: Results from a Stated Preference Study with Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to elicit the preferences of patients with multiple myeloma regarding the possible benefits and risks of cancer treatments and to illustrate how such data may be used to estimate patients' acceptance of new treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma from the cancer charity Myeloma UK were invited to participate in an online survey based on multicriteria decision analysis and swing weighting to elicit individual stated preferences for the following attributes: (a) 1-year progression-free survival (PFS, ranging from 50% to 90%), (b) mild or moderate toxicity for 2 months or longer (ranging from 85% to 45%), and (c) severe or life-threatening toxicity (ranging from 80% to 20%). RESULTS: A total of 560 participants completed the survey. The average weight given to PFS was 0.54, followed by 0.32 for severe or life-threatening toxicity and 0.14 for mild or moderate chronic toxicity. Participants who ranked severe or life-threatening toxicity above mild or moderate chronic toxicity (56%) were more frequently younger, working, and looking after dependent family members and had more frequently experienced severe or life-threatening side effects. The amount of weight given to PFS did not depend on any of the collected covariates. The feasibility of using the collected preference data to estimate the patients' acceptance of specific multiple myeloma treatments was demonstrated in a subsequent decision analysis example. CONCLUSION: Stated preference studies provide a systematic approach to gain knowledge about the distribution of preferences in the population and about what this implies for patients' acceptance of specific treatments. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study demonstrated how quantitative preference statements from a large group of participants can be collected through an online survey and how such information may be used to explore the acceptability of specific treatments based on the attributes studied. Results from such studies have the potential to become an important new tool for gathering patient views and studying heterogeneity in preferences in a systematic way, along with other methods, such as focus groups and expert opinions.

Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU.

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.

Patient Preferences for Rituximab Additional Risk Minimization Measures: Results From an International Online Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Patients' opinions are essential in optimizing risk minimization measures (RMMs) because they bring their real-life experience of disease management and medicines' use into the regulatory assessments. The aim of the survey launched in 2018 by the European Medicines Agency, in collaboration with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, was to consult targeted patient groups treated with rituximab for nononcology indications to evaluate their preferences on how to receive information on progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and (serious) infections. Additional RMMs such as educational materials for physicians and patients including a patient alert card (PAC) and a patient brochure (PB) are in place to minimize these risks. METHODS: A question-based online survey in English created on the EU-Survey platform and disseminated primarily via relevant European patient organizations. RESULTS: Most patients (47 of 61) had knowledge of these potential adverse effects. Mostly, they were informed by a healthcare professional. Both a PAC and a PB were supported as useful tools to raise awareness of these adverse effects and thus minimize the potential risks among patients. Where the participants had to choose only 1 of these educational materials, 43 of them preferred a PAC, a shorted description that is always held by the patient and reaches the relevant healthcare professional when needed. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting patients' preferences supports periodic assessment of additional RMMs and increase transparency of regulatory processes. Considering the limitations of this initial survey, further investigation is needed to generalize the results into patients' safety outcomes.

The Added Value of Patient Engagement in Early Dialogue at EMA: Scientific Advice as a Case Study.

The European Medicines Agency provides Scientific Advice to medicines developers and patient input has been an integral part of this process for many years. As end users of medicines, patients bring their perspectives to many different processes along EMA's regulatory pathway, complementing the scientific expertise. While the value of including patients has been well-demonstrated over the years, requests for evidence of their impact continue. Using Scientific Advice as a case study, data was collected over a four-year period to assess the number of patients involved, where they contributed, as well as the impact and added value of their input. In this paper, we show that patients' contributions have a tangible impact on the recommendations provided to developers and in over half of the cases, this led to further discussion on relevant patient perspectives. These data provide quantitative evidence of the value of patient input in medicines development and supports EMA's continued inclusion of their voice throughout the medicine's lifecycle.

The Position of Neuromuscular Patients in Shared Decision Making. Report from the 235th ENMC Workshop: Milan, Italy, January 19-20, 2018.

In the era of patient-centered medicine, shared decision-making (SDM) - in which healthcare professionals and patients exchange information and preferences and jointly reach a decision - has emerged as the gold standard model for the provision of formal healthcare. Indeed, in many geographical settings, patients are frequently invited to participate in choices concerning the design and delivery of their medical management. From a clinical perspective, benefits of this type of patient involvement encompass, for example, enhanced treatment satisfaction, improved medical compliance, better health outcomes, and maintained or promoted quality of life. Yet, although the theory and enactment of SDM in healthcare are well-described in the literature [1-3], comparatively less attention has been devoted to contextualizing questions relating to if, when, and how to include patients in decisions within medical research. In this context, patient involvement would be expected to be potentially relevant for and applicable to a wide range of activities and processes, from the identification of research priorities and development of grant applications, to the design of patient information and consent procedures, formulation of interventions, identification and recruitment of study sample populations, feasibility of a clinical trial, identification, selection, and specification of endpoints and outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies, data collection and analysis, and dissemination of results. To this end, 45 clinicians, healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, caregivers, and representatives from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies from 15 different countries met to discuss the level of involvement of patients with neuromuscular diseases, specifically in the following settings of medical research for neuromuscular diseases: i) registries and biobanks; ii) clinical trials; and iii) regulatory processes. In this report, we present summaries of the talks that were given during the workshop, as well as discussion outcomes from the three topic areas listed above.