Patient-centered research in pediatric transplant: Engaging families and recipients.

Pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients navigate a lifelong journey that includes constant monitoring and challenges. Research priorities and questions in LT have traditionally been provider-driven. This project was a novel partnership between a learning health system dedicated to pediatric LT (Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation) and a parent-led advocacy group (Transplant Families) that aimed to prepare families and providers for collaborative patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). We developed 5 virtual modules to (1) teach participants about PCOR, and (2) elicit ideas for PCOR priorities and processes in pediatric LT. Parents and providers participated via self-guided online modules or focus groups. Participants included 240 patient partners and 133 pediatric LT providers from 16 centers over 2 years. We held 20 focus groups, including 5 to amplify underrepresented voices: young adults, Spanish speakers, and African Americans. Feedback was summarized to create a PCOR Roadmap, a guide for future PCOR in the Starzl Network, which was disseminated back to participants online and via webinars. Feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders allowed us to develop PCOR priorities and processes for the pediatric LT community. Our engagement strategies could be adapted by other transplant communities to facilitate patient and provider research partnerships.

Overview of the 2023 FDA Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel meeting on the Recor Paradise Ultrasound-Based Renal Denervation System.

Hypertension continues to be a prominent, avoidable factor contributing to major vascular issues on a global scale. Even with lifestyle adjustments and more aggressive medical treatments, maintaining optimal blood pressure levels remains challenging. This challenge has driven the emergence of device-oriented approaches to address hypertension. To assess the safety and efficacy of the Recor Paradise Ultrasound Renal Denervation System, the Circulatory System Devices Panel was convened by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This manuscript provides a condensed overview of the information put forth by the sponsor and the FDA, along with an account of the considerations and conversations that took place during the meeting.

Recommendations for assessing appearance concerns related to plexiform and cutaneous neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Individuals with neurofibromatosis 1 may experience changes in their appearance due to physical manifestations of the disorders and/or treatment sequelae. Appearance concerns related to these physical changes can lead to psychological distress and poorer quality of life. While many neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials focus on assessing changes in tumor volume, evaluating patients' perspectives on corresponding changes in symptoms such as physical appearance can be key secondary outcomes. We aimed to determine whether any existing patient-reported outcome measures are appropriate for evaluating changes in appearance concerns within neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials. METHODS: After updating our previously published systematic review process, we used it to identify and rate existing patient-reported outcome measures related to disfigurement and appearance. Using a systematic literature search and initial triage process, we focused on identifying patient-reported outcome measures that could be used to evaluate changes in appearance concerns in plexiform or cutaneous neurofibroma clinical trials in neurofibromatosis 1. Our revised Patient-Reported Outcome Rating and Acceptance Tool for Endpoints then was used to evaluate each published patient-reported outcome measures in five domains, including (1) respondent characteristics, (2) content validity, (3) scoring format and interpretability, (4) psychometric data, and (5) feasibility. The highest-rated patient-reported outcome measures were then re-reviewed in a side-by-side comparison to generate a final consensus recommendation. RESULTS: Eleven measures assessing appearance concerns were reviewed and rated; no measures were explicitly designed to assess appearance concerns related to neurofibromatosis 1. The FACE-Q Craniofacial Module-Appearance Distress scale was the top-rated measure for potential use in neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials. Strengths of the measure included that it was rigorously developed, included individuals with neurofibromatosis 1 in the validation sample, was applicable to children and adults, covered item topics deemed important by neurofibromatosis 1 patient representatives, exhibited good psychometric properties, and was feasible for use in neurofibromatosis 1 trials. Limitations included a lack of validation in older adults, no published information regarding sensitivity to change in clinical trials, and limited availability in languages other than English. CONCLUSION: The Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis patient-reported outcome working group currently recommends the FACE-Q Craniofacial Module Appearance Distress scale to evaluate patient-reported changes in appearance concerns in clinical trials for neurofibromatosis 1-related plexiform or cutaneous neurofibromas. Additional research is needed to validate this measure in people with neurofibromatosis 1, including older adults and those with tumors in various body locations, and explore the effects of nontumor manifestations on appearance concerns in people with neurofibromatosis 1 and schwannomatosis.

Mission Alliance Community Engagement Project: Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Social Isolation, Loneliness, Mental Health and Wellbeing in Veterans.

During the Coronavirus disease pandemic, many U.S. veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) experienced increased symptomology and worsened mental health and well-being due in part to social isolation and loneliness. The Mission Alliance project explored these ramifications and prioritized critical issues expressed by U.S. veterans and stakeholders (N = 182) during virtual regional meetings (N = 32). Field notes created specifically for this project were recorded and thematically analyzed. Emerging themes included: (1) social isolation: missed opportunities, collapsed social circles, work-life balance, fostering relationships, and evolving health care delivery; (2) loneliness: deteriorated mental health, suffered with PTSD together but alone, looked out for each other, ambivalence toward technology, and strained and broken systems; (3) mental health: sense of chaos, increased demand and decreased access, aggravation, implementation of tools, innovative solutions, fear and loss, and availability of resources; (4) wellbeing: sense of purpose, holistic perspective on well-being, recognition of balance, persisting stigma, redefined pressures, freedom to direct treatment, and reconnection and disconnection. A PTSD-related patient centered outcomes research (PCOR)/comparative effectiveness research (CER) agenda was developed from these themes. Establishment of a veteran and stakeholder network is suggested to support, facilitate, and promote the PTSD-related PCOR/CER agenda. Furthermore, enhancement of opportunities for veterans with PTSD and stakeholders to partner in PCOR/CER is required to develop and conduct projects that lead to PTSD-related comprehensive care of veterans affected by traumatic events with the potential to translate findings to other populations.

Timing of sedation and patient-reported pain outcomes during cardiac catheterization: Results from the UNTAP-intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Invasive cardiac catheterization (CC) temporarily increases pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Procedural sedation is deployed to mitigate these symptoms, though practice varies. Research evaluating peri-procedural patient-reported outcomes is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 175 patients undergoing CC to short interval ([SI] group, <6 min) or long interval ([LI] group, ≥6 min) time intervals between initial intravenous sedation and local anesthetic administration. Outcomes included: (1) total pain medication use, (2) patient-reported and behaviorally assessed pain and (3) patient satisfaction during outpatient CC. Generalized linear mixed effect models were used to evaluate the impact of treatment time interval on total medication utilization, pain, and satisfaction. Among enrollees the mean age was 62 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.4), a majority were male (66%), white (74%), and overweight (mean body mass index = 28.5 [SD = 5.6]). Total pain medication use did not vary between treatment groups (p = 0.257), with no difference in total fentanyl (p = 0.288) or midazolam (p = 0.292). Post-treatment pain levels and nurse-observed pain were not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.324 & p = 0.656, respectively. No significant differences with satisfaction with sedation were found between the groups (p = 0.95) Patient-reported pain, satisfaction and nurse-observed measures of pain did not differ, after adjustment for demographic and procedural factors. Analyses of treatment effect modification revealed that postprocedure self-reported pain levels varied systematically between individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (SI = 2.2 [0.8, 3.6] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.6, 2.0]) compared with participants not undergoing PCI (SI = 0.4 [-0.8, 1.7] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.3, 1.6]) (p = 0.043 for interaction). CONCLUSION: No consistent treatment differences were found for total medication dose, pain, or satisfaction regardless of timing between sedation and local anesthetic. Treatment moderations were seen for patients undergoing PCI. Further investigation of how procedural and individual factors impact the patient experience during CC is needed.

Incorporating economic analysis in interventional cardiology research.

Evaluative research in interventional cardiology has focused on clinical and technical outcomes. Inclusion of economic data can enhance evaluative research by quantifying the relative economic burden incurred by different therapies. When combined with clinical outcomes, cost data can provide a measure of value (e.g., marginal cost-effectiveness). In some select situations, cost data can also be used as surrogates for complexity of care and morbidity. In this narrative review, we aim to provide a framework for the application of cost data in clinical trials and observational research, detailing how to incorporate this kind of data into interventional cardiology research.

Enhancing Patient Centricity of Real-World Data Research: An Exploratory Analysis Using the Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox.

OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing expectation that medical product development and assessment be guided by patient input captured through patient engagement. Recently published consensus guidelines describe how qualitative patient experience data (PED) can guide the design, conduct, and translation of real-world research that reflects patients' lived experience. The objective of this exploratory analysis is to examine how researchers could leverage PED captured through the Patient Experience Mapping Toolbox (PEMT) to guide real-world data (RWD) research designs. METHODS: This exploratory analysis included a thematic analysis of interview transcripts collected while pilot testing the PEMT followed by a qualitative analysis of the emerging themes aligned with stages listed in the patient-centered real-world evidence, Real-World Research Design Framework. RESULTS: PED collected using the PEMT include information about symptomology, interactions with the healthcare system, information-seeking behavior, misdiagnoses, lifestyle changes, treatments, side effects, and comorbidities. This information can be leveraged at key study design decisions, including (1) identifying study cohorts and subgroups, (2) identifying exposures, (3) informing covariates and potential confounders; and (4) refining study periods. Additionally, participants described where they seek information about treatments and diseases, which should inform dissemination strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified opportunities for PED collected using the PEMT to inform RWD study designs. The PED described in this exploratory analysis stem from pilot testing of the PEMT across a variety of conditions. In the next phase of development in this area, researchers should evaluate how data collected using the PEMT can be applied to RWD research for a specific disease.

Examining how study teams manage different viewpoints and priorities in patient-centered outcomes research: Results of an embedded multiple case study.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists about which patient and stakeholder engagement practices support or hinder study teams as they negotiate different viewpoints in decisions about the design and conduct of patient-centered outcomes research. METHODS: We applied a multiple-embedded descriptive case study design for six studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We interviewed 32 researchers and stakeholder partners, including patients, caregivers and clinicians, and reviewed documents related to each study (e.g., publications, and progress reports submitted to PCORI). FINDINGS: Overall, researchers reported that incorporating different viewpoints was a strength or opportunity to learn rather than something to be avoided or dreaded. Across cases, different viewpoints and priorities, often related to ethical or pragmatic considerations, emerged between researchers and stakeholders, between stakeholder groups (e.g., patients and clinicians) or within groups (e.g., amongst researchers). Examples of navigating different viewpoints arose across study phases. The length of time to resolve issues depended on how strongly people disagreed and the perceived importance or impact of decisions on the study. All cases used collaborative decision-making approaches, often described as consensus, throughout the study. Interviewees described consensus as using negotiation, compromise or working towards an agreeable decision. To encourage consensus, cases actively facilitated group discussions with an openness to diverse opinions, remained flexible and open to trying new things, referenced a ground rule or common goal and delegated decisions to partners or smaller workgroups. When viewpoints were not easily resolved, cases used different approaches to reach final decisions while maintaining relationships with partners, such as elevating decisions to leadership or agreeing to test out an approach. No one engagement structure (e.g., advisory group, coinvestigator) stood out as better able to manage different viewpoints. Teams adjusted engagement structures and behaviours to facilitate an overall culture of inclusion and respect. Partners acknowledged the intentional efforts of researchers to incorporate their perspectives, navigate challenges and communicate the value of partner input. CONCLUSION: By using collaborative decision-making in the early stages and throughout the study, researchers built trust with partners so that when decisions were difficult to resolve, partners still felt listened to and that their input mattered. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the PCORI Patient Engagement Advisory Panel in 2019-2020 provided input into the design of the study, including the research questions and approaches to data collection and analysis.

[Clinical trials as a central part of patient-centered clinical research]. / Klinische Studien als zentraler Bestandteil patientenorientierter Forschung.

As the continuation and implementation of findings from basic (pre­)clinical research, clinical trials make a significant contribution to medical research. They form the central building block of translational medicine and thus make a decisive contribution to bringing medical knowledge into general care. This helps to make possible a healthcare system that is aligned to the needs of patients and functions efficiently in the long term. Based on the specific objective, clinical trials must comply with national, but increasingly also with European and international regulatory requirements. In academia in particular, expertise in a variety of fields is required in order to make investigator-driven clinical trials a success. This expertise can be provided by a clinical trial center based within the institution conducting the trial.

[Clinical trials as a central part of patient-centered clinical research]. / Klinische Studien als zentraler Bestandteil patientenorientierter Forschung.

As the continuation and implementation of findings from basic (pre-)clinical research, clinical trials make a significant contribution to medical research. They form the central building block of translational medicine and thus make a decisive contribution to bringing medical knowledge into general care. This helps to make possible a healthcare system that is aligned to the needs of patients and functions efficiently in the long term. Based on the specific objective, clinical trials must comply with national, but increasingly also with European and international regulatory requirements. In academia in particular, expertise in a variety of fields is required in order to make investigator-driven clinical trials a success. This expertise can be provided by a clinical trial center based within the institution conducting the trial.