An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. METHODS: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. RESULTS: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

Recommendations for patient involvement in health technology assessment in Central and Eastern European countries.

Introduction: Meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Methods: Built on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts. Results: A total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region's context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience. Conclusion: In this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire.

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The 'key' stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients', clinicians', regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the 'key' stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of 'key' stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the 'key' stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process.

Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries.

Patients' perspectives are important to identify preferences, estimate values and appreciate unmet medical needs in the process of research and development and subsequent assessment of new health technologies. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in understanding and assessing wider implications of coverage and reimbursement decisions for patients, their relatives, caregivers, and the general population. There are two approaches to incorporating the patients' voice in HTA, preferably used in a mix. In the first one, patients, caregivers and/or their representatives directly participate at discussions in different stages of the HTA process, often at the same table with other stakeholders. Secondly, patient involvement activities can be supported by evidence on patient value and experience collected directly from patients, caregivers and/or their representatives often by patient groups Patient involvement practices, however, are limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries without clear methodology or regulatory mechanisms to guide patient involvement in the HTA process. This poses the question of transferability of practices used in other countries, and might call for the development of new CEE-specific guidelines and methods. In this study we aim to map potential barriers of patient involvement in HTA in countries of the CEE region.

Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved. METHOD: STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.

All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Patient Engagement in Health Product Research and Development: Co-Creating a Framework for Community Advisory Boards.

PURPOSE: While patient engagement is becoming more customary in developing health products, its monitoring and evaluation to understand processes and enhance impact are challenging. This article describes a patient engagement monitoring and evaluation (PEME) framework, co-created and tailored to the context of community advisory boards (CABs) for rare diseases in Europe. It can be used to stimulate learning and evaluate impacts of engagement activities. METHODS: A participatory approach was used in which data collection and analysis were iterative. The process was based on the principles of interactive learning and action and guided by the PEME framework. Data were collected via document analysis, reflection sessions, a questionnaire, and a workshop. RESULTS: The tailored framework consists of a theory of change model with metrics explaining how CABs can reach their objectives. Of 61 identified metrics, 17 metrics for monitoring the patient engagement process and short-term outcomes were selected, and a "menu" for evaluating long-term impacts was created. Example metrics include "Industry representatives' understanding of patients' unmet needs;" "Feeling of trust between stakeholders;" and "Feeling of preparedness." "Alignment of research programs with patients' needs" was the highest-ranked metric for long-term impact. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that process and short-term outcome metrics could be standardized across CABs, whereas long-term impact metrics may need to be tailored to the collaboration from a proposed menu. Accordingly, we recommend that others adapt and refine the PEME framework as appropriate. The next steps include implementing and testing the evaluation framework to stimulate learning and share impacts.

Repurposing of Medicines in the EU: Launch of a Pilot Framework.

Repurposing of authorised medicines has been under discussion for a long time. Drug repurposing is the process of identifying a new use for an existing medicine in an indication outside the scope of the original approved indication. Indeed, the COVID-19 health crisis has brought the concept to the frontline by proving the usefulness of this practise in favour of patients for an early access to treatment. Under the umbrella of the Pharmaceutical Committee and as a result of the discussions at the European Commission Expert Group on Safe and Timely Access to Medicines for Patients (STAMP) a virtual Repurposing Observatory Group (RepOG) was set up in 2019 to define and test the practical aspects of a pilot project thought to provide support to "not-for-profit" stakeholders generating or gathering data for a new therapeutic use for an authorised medicine. The group's initial plan was impacted by the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the launch of the pilot needed to be postponed. This article describes the progress and the activities conducted by the group during this past and yet extraordinary 2020-2021 to keep the project alive and explores on the background of this topic together with the obvious opportunities this health crisis has brought up in terms of repurposing of medicines.

Patient Contribution to the Development and Safe Use of Medicines During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 has catapulted the issue of the patient voice in healthcare and healthcare policy to the front of the global agenda. The world population has been affected with varying government-required risk mitigation measures including social distancing, national, regional and local "lock down" quarantines, and the wearing of masks along with diligent handwashing. Clearly, not all of these measures are possible in every country due to a lack of resources and healthcare infrastructure, and it will surely be patients who will suffer the most as a result. This issue must be dealt with responsibly on the local level by all countries and patients cooperating with and supporting overwhelmed healthcare systems and aiding the planned implementation of mitigation measures. If not, pockets of SARS-CoV-2 will remain in these regions with continuous suffering of their populations. This is critical as we still do not fully understand the clinical, pathological and epidemiological attributes of SARS-CoV-2; the longer it stays embedded and circulating, the possibility of mutation into a deadlier virus remains along with further waves of epidemics.

Collaboration between patient organisations and a clinical research sponsor in a rare disease condition: learnings from a community advisory board and best practice for future collaborations.

Introduction Transparent collaborations between patient organisations (POs) and clinical research sponsors (CRS) can identify and address the unmet needs of patients and caregivers. These insights can improve clinical trial participant experience and delivery of medical innovations necessary to advance health outcomes and standards of care. We share our experiences from such a collaboration undertaken surrounding the SENSCIS® clinical trial (NCT02597933), and discuss its impact during, and legacy beyond, the trial.Summary We describe the establishment of a community advisory board (CAB): a transparent, multiyear collaboration between the scleroderma patient community and a CRS. We present shared learnings from the collaboration, which is split into three main areas: (1) the implementation and conduct of the clinical trial; (2) analysis and dissemination of the results; and (3) aspects of the collaboration not related to the trial.1. The scleroderma CAB reviewed and provided advice on trial conduct and reporting. This led to the improvement and optimisation of trial procedures; meaningful, patient-focused adaptations were made to address challenges relevant to scleroderma-associated interstitial lung disease patients.2. To ensure that results of the trial were accessible to lay audiences and patients, written lay summaries were developed by the trial sponsor with valuable input from the CAB to ensure that language and figures were understandable.3. The CAB and the CRS also collaborated to co-develop opening tools for medication blister packs and bottles. In addition, to raise disease awareness among physicians, patients and caregivers, educational materials to improve diagnosis and management of scleroderma were co-created and delivered by the CAB and CRS.Conclusions This collaboration between POs and a CRS, in a rare disease condition, led to meaningful improvements in patient safety, comfort and self-management and addressed information needs. This collaboration may serve as a template of best practice for future collaborations between POs, research sponsors and other healthcare stakeholders.

The fourth edition of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment Forum: highlights and outcomes.

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) organizes an annual Forum with stakeholders to receive feedback on its activities, processes, and outputs produced. The fourth edition of the EUnetHTA Forum brought together representatives of HTA bodies, patient organizations, healthcare professionals (HCPs), academia, payers, regulators, and industry. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the highlights presented at the 2019 EUnetHTA Forum, reporting the main items and themes discussed in the plenary panel and breakout sessions. The leading topic was the concept of unmet medical need seen from different stakeholders' perspectives. Breakout sessions covered the joint production of assessment reports and engagement with payers, patients, and HCPs. Synergies, pragmatism, and inclusiveness across Member States and stakeholders were emphasized as leading factors to put in place a collaboration that serves the interest of patients and public health in a truly European spirit.

High Price Medicines and Health Budgets: The Role Patients' and Consumers' Organisations Can Play.

Healthcare systems face challenges due to budget constraints, complex therapies, and new treatments for rare diseases. One of the most successful patient advocacy campaigns of all times was initiated by people living with HIV and AIDS in African countries. Facing industry giants, they won court cases allowing governments to ignore intellectual property rights when the price of a medicine was abnormally high. This led to the approval of the international 'Agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights', which contributed to improving the availability of AIDS treatments for millions of people. Beyond this successful patient advocacy campaign, patient organisations have an important role to play in national discussions on prices of treatments and pharmaceuticals, especially for rare diseases. This article first discusses the specificity of the pricing of orphan medicinal products, and then provides an overview of some of the important actions that can be carried out by patients' organisations.

Interest in a Mobile App for Two-Way Risk Communication: A Survey Study Among European Healthcare Professionals and Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Previously, an app has been developed for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to national medicines agencies and to receive drug safety information. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess (1) European HCPs' and patients' interest in an app for this two-way risk communication; (2) their preferences and perceptions towards specific app characteristics; and (3) which HCPs and patients are particularly interested in the app. In addition, these aspects were studied specifically for the countries where such an app was already available, i.e. Croatia, The Netherlands, and The UK. METHODS: European HCPs and patients were asked to complete a web-based survey developed in the context of the Web-Recognizing Adverse Drug Reactions (Web-RADR) project. Data on app interest and preferences and perceptions towards app characteristics were analysed descriptively. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of HCP characteristics and patient characteristics on the level of interest in the app (i.e. very interested vs. not/somewhat interested). RESULTS: In total, 399 HCPs and 656 patients completed the survey. About half of the patients (48%; ranging from 38% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK), and 61% of the HCPs (ranging from 42% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK) were very interested in the app. A faster means of reporting ADRs and easier access to the reporting form were the main perceived benefits. HCPs and patients who already use a health app were particularly interested in the app (HCPs: odds ratio [OR] 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.96-6.30, patients: OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.19-2.27). CONCLUSIONS: An app is positively perceived by HCPs and patients for reporting ADRs quickly and for receiving drug safety information from national medicines agencies. In particular, HCPs and patients who already use other health apps were interested in the app.

Patient Reporting in the EU: Analysis of EudraVigilance Data.

INTRODUCTION: New pharmacovigilance legislation was adopted in the EU in 2010 and became operational in July 2012. The legislation placed an obligation on all national competent authorities (NCAs) and marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) to record and report cases of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) received from patients. OBJECTIVES: This descriptive study aims to provide insight into patient reporting for the totality of the EU by querying the EudraVigilance (EV) database for the period of 3 years before the new pharmacovigilance legislation became operational and the 3 years after as well as comparing patient reports with those from healthcare professionals (HCPs) where feasible. METHODS: We queried the EV database for the following characteristics of patient and HCP reports: demographics (patient sex and age), seriousness, reported ADR terms, reported indications, number of ADRs per report, time to report an ADR, and most reported substances. Wherever feasible, direct comparisons between patient reports and HCP reports were performed using relative risks. RESULTS: The EV database contained a total of 53,130 patient reports in the 3 years preceding the legislation operation period and 113,371 in the 3 years after. Member states contributing the most patient reports to the EV database were the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, France and Italy. The results for indications and substances show that patients were more likely than HCPs to report for genitourinary, hormonal and reproductive indications. Patients reported more in general disorders and administration site conditions Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) System Organ Class (SOC), whereas HCPs reported more Preferred Terms (PTs) belonging in the Investigations SOC. However, 13 of the 20 reactions most frequently reported by patients were also among the top 20 reactions reported by HCPs. CONCLUSION: Patient reporting complemented reporting by HCPs. Patients were motivated to report ADRs, especially those that affected their quality of life. Sharing these results with NCAs and patient associations can inform training and awareness on patient reporting.

Factors Influencing the Use of a Mobile App for Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions and Receiving Safety Information: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: A mobile app may increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and improve the communication of new drug safety information. Factors that influence the use of an app for such two-way risk communication need to be considered at the development stage. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to reveal the factors that may influence healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to use an app for two-way risk communication. METHODS: Focus group discussions and face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, patients with a rare disease or their caregivers and adolescents with health conditions were eligible to participate. HCPs included pharmacists, paediatricians, general practitioners, internists, practice nurses and professionals caring for patients with a rare disease. Patients and HCPs were recruited through various channels. The recorded discussions and interviews were transcribed verbatim. The dataset was analysed using thematic analysis and arranged according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. RESULTS: Seven focus group discussions and 13 interviews were conducted. In total, 21 HCPs and 50 patients participated. Identified factors that may influence the use of the app were the type of feedback given on reported ADRs, how ADR reports are stored and the type of drug news. Also mentioned were other functions of the app, ease of use, type of language, the source of safety information provided through the app, security of the app, layout, the operating systems on which the app can be used and the costs. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to assess associations between user characteristics and the direction (positive or negative) of the factors potentially influencing app use.

Policy recommendations for rare disease centres of expertise.

AIM: Rare diseases are a serious public health concern and are a priority in the EU. This study aims to develop policy recommendations for rare disease centres of expertise (CoEs) in order to improve standards and quality of care. SUBJECT AND METHODS: A modified 3-round Delphi technique was used. Participants included rare diseases patients, carers, patient representatives and healthcare professionals (HCPs) from CoEs in two countries-Denmark and the UK. RESULTS: The results suggest the need to make improvements within current CoE environments, access to CoEs and the need for coordination and cooperation of services within and outside CoEs. It is recommended that CoEs are not overly 'medicalised', while at the same time they should be established as research facilities. The importance of including patient representatives in CoE performance management was also highlighted. Raising awareness and provision of appropriate training amongst non-specialist HCPs is seen as a priority for early and correct diagnosis and ensuring high quality care. Similarly, provision of targeted information about patients' illness and care was considered essential along with access to social assistance within CoEs. CONCLUSIONS: Policy recommendations were developed in areas previously recognised as having gaps. Their implementation is expected to strengthen and improve current care provision for rare disease patients. In member states where national plans and strategies are being developed, it is recommended to replicate the methodological approach used in this study as it has proven to be a helpful tool in rare disease centres of expertise policy development.

A European network of email and telephone help lines providing information and support on rare diseases: results from a 1-month activity survey.

BACKGROUND: Information on rare diseases are often complex to understand, or difficult to access and additional support is often necessary. Rare diseases helplines work together across Europe to respond to calls and emails from the public at large, including patients, health care professionals, families, and students. Measuring the activity of helplines can help decision makers to allocate adequate funds when deciding to create or expand an equivalent service. OBJECTIVE: Data presented are referred to a monthly user profile analysis, which is one of the activities that each helpline has to carry out to be part of the network. This survey aimed to explore the information requests and characteristics of users of rare diseases helplines in different European countries. Another aim was to analyze these data with respect to users' characteristics, helpline characteristics, topics of the inquiries, and technologies used to provide information. With this survey, we measure data that are key for planning information services on rare diseases in the context of the development of national plans for rare diseases. METHODS: A survey was conducted based on all calls, emails, visits, or letters received from November 1 to 30, 2012 to monitor the activity represented by 12 helplines. Data were collected by a common standardized form, using ORPHA Codes for rare diseases, when applicable. No personal data identifying the inquirer were collected. It was a descriptive approach documenting on the number and purpose of inquiries, the number of respondents, the mode of contact, the category of the inquirer in relation to the patient, the inquirer's gender, age and region of residence, the patient's age when applicable, the type and duration of response, and the satisfaction as scored by the respondents. RESULTS: A total of 1676 calls, emails, or letters were received from November 1 to 30, 2012. Inquiries were mostly about specific diseases. An average of 23 minutes was spent for each inquiry. The inquirer was a patient in 571/1676 inquiries (ie, 34.07% of all cases; 95% CI 31.8-36.3). Other inquirers included relatives (520/1676, 31.03%; 95% CI 28.9-33.3), health care professionals (354/1676, 21.12%; 95% CI 19.2-23.1), and miscellaneous inquirers (230/1676, 13.72%; 95% CI 12.1-15.4). Telephone remained the main mode of contact (988/1676, 58.95%; 95% CI 56.6-61.3), followed by emails (609/1676, 36.34%; 95% CI 34.0-38.6). The three main reasons of inquiries were to acquire about information on the disease (682/2242, 30.42%; 95% CI 27.8-32.1), a specialized center/expert (404/2242, 18.02%; 95% CI 15.9-19.6), and social care (240/2242, 10.70%; 95% CI 9.1-12.0). CONCLUSIONS: The helplines service responds to the demands of the public, however more inquiry-categories could be responded to. This leaves the possibility to expand the scope of the helplines, for example by providing assistance to patients when they are reporting suspected adverse drug reactions as provided by Directive 2010/84/EU or by providing information on patients' rights to cross-border care, as provided by Directive 2010/24/EU.

Active involvement of patients in drug research, evaluation, and commercialization: European perspective.

Patients' organizations intervene more and more often in clinical research and the evaluation of medicinal products. Examples of patients' involvement in the initiation, design, recruitment, conduct, and information of clinical trials were only anecdotal until the late 80s. Prior to this date, some rare experiences were reported. At the beginning of the 80s, the AIDS epidemic certainly changed the relation between clinical research and patients, and mechanisms that drove these changes are explained. AIDS activism focused its medical activities to the following domains: (1) to accelerate access to promising new drugs and (2) to contribute to ethical clinical research. The European Medicinal Evaluation Agency (EMEA) created in 1995 offered the opportunity to simplify discussions between European Union regulatory authorities and patients' representatives: a single interlocutor now exists. Interactions between EMEA and patients' representatives vary: they can be more or less structured. Whether intrusion of patients and their representatives in clinical research and pharmaceutical product development had an impact was explored by social sciences researchers. Conclusions are mitigated.