Patients' perspectives on a drug safety monitoring system for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases based on patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are increasingly used in cohort event monitoring (CEM) to obtain a better understanding of patients' real-world experience with drugs. Despite the leading role for patients, little is known about their perspectives on CEM systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional open survey following the rationale of the Technology Acceptance Model, we aimed to obtain insight in patients' perspectives on the perceived usefulness, ease of use and attitude toward using a PRO-based drug safety monitoring system for ADRs attributed to biologics. RESULTS: Patients considered structural reporting of ADRs in web-based questionnaires as useful and not burdensome. It was preferred to link the questionnaire frequency to regular hospital consultations or the biologic administration schedule. Various respondents were interested in sharing questionnaires with their medical specialist (49.0%) or pharmacist (34.2%), and suggested to minimize the questionnaire frequency in case of an unaltered situation or absence of ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perspectives should be considered in the setup of PRO-based CEM studies, as this contributes to data quality and patient centeredness. Since incorporation of patients' perspectives in CEM studies is indispensable, a delicate balance should be found between user-friendliness and study aims.

Correction to: Communicating Adverse Drug Reaction Insights Through Patient Organizations: Experiences from a Pilot Study in the Netherlands.

The article "Communicating Adverse Drug Reaction Insights Through Patient Organizations: Experiences from a Pilot Study in the Netherlands", written by Linda Härmark, Gerda Weits, Rietje Meijer, Federica Santoro, G. Niklas Norén, Florence van Hunsel, was originally published electronically on 16 May 2020 without open access.

Immune-mediated inflammatory disease patients' preferences in adverse drug reaction information regarding biologics.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in studies and medical practice to obtain information on patients' perspectives toward their treatment or disease. However, most study outcomes are primarily directed at healthcare professionals. It was aimed to obtain insight in which type of information immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients prefer to receive after participating in the Dutch Biologic Monitor (DBM), a PRO-based prospective cohort event monitoring system focused on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: A survey was conducted among DBM participants that wanted information about the results. Patients' preferences were identified using twelve statements and rated with five-point Likert-type scales. Subgroup analyses and differences between statements were performed using Mann-Whitney U Tests. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 591 patients (response rate 67.6%). Most respondents had inflammatory rheumatic diseases (76.8%) and used adalimumab (37.2%) or etanercept (33.2%). Respondents preferred results per IMID over aggregated results (p = <0.001). Information on whether patients with similar IMIDs experience ADRs (average 4.5), which biologics are most likely to cause ADRs (4.4) and whether ADRs disappear (4.4) were most interesting. CONCLUSION: DBM participants prefer to receive disease-specific information on ADRs that is tailored to their own biologic and IMID, including the outcome of ADRs.

Communicating Adverse Drug Reaction Insights Through Patient Organizations: Experiences from a Pilot Study in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: To improve therapeutic decision making, it is crucial that information regarding adverse drug reactions reaches patients. It is not enough to disseminate such findings through regulatory and scientific channels; targeted efforts to reach patients are necessary. One possible avenue is to collaborate with patient organizations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this pilot study was to explore how adverse drug reactions can be communicated through patient organizations. METHODS: A text describing a signal of levothyroxine and panic attacks was tailored to patients' needs, in terms of language, style and content, with emphasis placed on what to do when experiencing the symptoms described. The signal was communicated via the Dutch thyroid organization's digital newsletter, social media channels, website and print magazine. RESULTS: The digital newsletter was distributed to around 5000 subscribers. On Facebook, 13,820 people viewed the message, with 2346 clicks in the message, indicating an intention to read the whole post. The interactions on social media were positive, and the tone was respectful. CONCLUSION: Patient organizations can help enable effective communication of adverse drug reactions to a relevant audience. The social media post generated more engagement than other communications from the patient organization, indicating a strong interest in this information. The additional patient experiences that were shared in the comments on social media further strengthened the original signal and its relevance to patients, creating an interesting feedback loop. The favourable experiences in this study support further consideration and exploration of this approach to communicate adverse drug reactions to patients.

Collaboration between patient and pharmacovigilance organizations to gain insight into adults' experiences with drug use and ADRs for the treatment of ADHD.

BACKGROUND: Patient organizations have good access to patients, which can be of interest in gaining knowledge about patients' experiences with drugs. The aim of this study is to investigate if a collaboration between a pharmacovigilance center and an ADHD patient organization can give more insight in patients' experiences with drug use and ADRs for the treatment of AD(H)D. METHODS: Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb and ADHD patient organization Impuls & Woortblind created a web-based questionnaire asking about patients' experiences with drug use and ADRs. Patients were approached to participate by e-mail and an open web-link. They were also asked to report ADRs through the official reporting form of Lareb. RESULTS: A total of 1160 patients completed the questionnaire, of which 75.2% of the respondents experienced ADRs and 60.7% discontinued treatment because of an ADR. More than 70% experienced positive effects of their drugs. Additionally, 5.0% of the respondents reported their ADRs to Lareb. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration with patient organizations provide useful insight into patients' experiences with drug use and ADRs taking into account establishing clear 'rules of engagement'. An active approach to collaborate with patient organizations is a way forward to gain more information about drug use and ADRs in a selective cohort.

The Role of European Patient Organizations in Pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: Patient organizations have a privileged position to be active agents for promoting pharmacovigilance and patient engagement, encouraging direct patient reporting and improving the awareness of pharmacovigilance. AIM: The objective of this study was to understand the role of European patient organizations as stakeholders to optimize patient involvement in pharmacovigilance. METHODS: A descriptive correlational study was conducted to investigate the opinions and attitudes of patient organizations regarding general patient involvement in pharmacovigilance, and their initiatives to support drug safety through a web-based questionnaire during the months of March and April 2018. RESULTS: A total of 1898 patient organizations were invited to participate in the survey, including 89 pan-European organizations. In total, 337 questionnaires (17.76%) were collected from 31 countries, including 297 complete answers (88.31%). A large number of organizations stated that they would like to increase the awareness of patients regarding specific adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to their medicines (43.19%, n  = 130); however, 38.54% (n  = 116) declared they do not have any pharmacovigilance goals. Barriers to supporting pharmacovigilance activities include low budget to promote pharmacovigilance among members (45.45%, n  = 135), lack of resources to participate in pharmacovigilance activities (43.77%, n  = 130), or lack of support from the National Competent Authorities (33.33%, n  = 99). Organizations inform patients to report ADRs (40.40%; n  = 120), information regarding new ADRs related to their medicines (40.07%; n  = 119), or when a new drug is marketed (30.98%; n  = 92); however, more than one-third indicated that they never had any involvement in pharmacovigilance (34.68%; n  = 103). CONCLUSION: Bringing pharmacovigilance stakeholders and patient organizations together could create a more optimal reporting culture. Patient organizations appear to have an important role in encouraging patients to talk with their doctors/pharmacists about ADRs experienced, or to help him/her report the ADRs to the pharmacovigilance systems. Lack of resources, budget, and support from NCAs are seen as the main barriers to being involved in pharmacovigilance awareness.