Patient involvement in medical research: what patients and physicians learn from each other.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in actively involving patients in the process of medical research to help ensure research is relevant and important to both researchers and people affected by the disease under study. This project examined the recently formed Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN), a rare disease research network, to better understand what investigators and patients learned from working on research teams together. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted by phone with patients, physician/PhD-investigators, and study managers/staff who participated in the network. The question guiding the interviews and observational analysis was: "What have investigators and patients learned about working together while working on VPPRN teams?" Interview transcripts were analyzed in combination with observations from multiple in-person and telephone meetings. RESULTS: Transcripts and notes were reviewed and coded from 22 interviews conducted among 13 patient-partners, 5 study managers/staff, and 4 MD or PhD-investigators, and 6 in-person and 42 telephone/web-conference meetings. Patient-partners and investigators characterized their working relationships with one another, what they learned from their collaborations, and provided recommendations for future teams of patient-partners and investigators. Major themes included the great benefits of communicating about activities, being open to listening to each group member, and the importance of setting reasonable expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Direct engagement in research design and development by patient-partners and co-learning between investigators and patient-partners can result in a positive and productive working relationship for all members of a medical research team. This bi-directional engagement directly benefits and impacts research design, participant recruitment to studies, and study subject retention.

No Equity, No Triple Aim: Strategic Proposals to Advance Health Equity in a Volatile Policy Environment.

Health professionals, including social workers, community health workers, public health workers, and licensed health care providers, share common interests and responsibilities in promoting health equity and improving social determinants of health-the conditions in which people live, work, play, and learn. We summarize the underlying causes of health inequity and comparatively poor health outcomes in the United States. We describe barriers to realizing the hope embedded in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that moving away from fee-for-service payments will naturally drive care upstream as providers respond to greater financial risk by undertaking greater prevention efforts for the health of their patients. We assert that health equity should serve as the guiding framework for achieving the Triple Aim of health care reform and outline practical opportunities for improving care and promoting stronger efforts to address social determinants of health. These proposals include developing a dashboard of measures to assist providers committed to health equity and community-based prevention and to promote institutional accountability for addressing socioeconomic factors that influence health.

Stimulating Patient Engagement in Medical Device Development in Kidney Disease: A Report of a Kidney Health Initiative Workshop.

New technologies challenge current dialysis treatment paradigms as devices become smaller, more portable, and increasingly used outside the dialysis clinic. It is unclear how patients will view this care transition, and it will be important to consider patient and care partner perspectives during all aspects of development for novel dialysis therapies, from design and clinical trials to regulatory approval. To gain insight into this area, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology, the US Food and Drug Administration, and nearly 80 member organizations and companies dedicated to enhancing patient safety and fostering innovation in kidney disease, convened a workshop of patients, care partners, and other kidney community stakeholders. The workshop included background presentations followed by focused small group discussions in 3 areas (device design, clinical trials, and regulatory approval). Participants explored how to involve patients throughout the life cycle of a medical device, including discussions of how patients can influence device design, assist in the planning and implementation of clinical trials, and provide input to affect regulatory decisions. Patients were engaged in the workshop discussion and interested in sharing their perspectives, but they recommended additional efforts around education, communication, and outreach in these areas.

Dialysis Patient Perspectives on CKD Advocacy: A Semistructured Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Health advocacy groups provide education, raise public awareness, and engage in legislative, scientific, and regulatory processes to advance funding and treatments for many diseases. Despite a high burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the United States, public awareness and research funding lag behind those for other disease states. We undertook this study of patients receiving maintenance dialysis to describe knowledge and beliefs about CKD advocacy, understand perceptions regarding advocacy participation, and elicit ideas for generating more advocacy in the dialysis community. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 48 patients (89% response rate) receiving in-center hemodialysis (n=39), home hemodialysis (n=4), and peritoneal dialysis (n=5) from 14 US states. METHODOLOGY: Semistructured interviews. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: 5 themes describing patient perspectives on CKD advocacy were identified: (1) advocacy awareness (advocacy vs engagement knowledge, concrete knowledge, CKD publicity), (2) willingness to participate (personal qualities, internal efficacy, external efficacy), (3) motivations (altruism, providing a purpose, advancement of personal health, self-education), (4) resource availability (time, financial and transportation, health status), and (5) mobilization experience (key figure, mobilization network). Participants displayed operational understanding of advocacy but generally lacked knowledge about specific opportunities for participation. Personal qualities and external efficacy were perceived as important for advocacy participation, as were motivating factors such as altruism and self-education. Resources factored heavily into perceived participation ability. Most participants identified a key figure who invited them to participate in advocacy. In-person patient-delivered communication about advocacy opportunities was identified as critical to enhancing CKD advocacy among patients living on dialysis therapy. LIMITATIONS: Potential selection bias and inclusion of only English-speaking participants may limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results suggest that there may be untapped advocacy potential within the dialysis community and highlight the need for local in-person patient-led initiatives to increase patient involvement in CKD advocacy.

Patient Perspectives on the Choice of Dialysis Modality: Results From the Empowering Patients on Choices for Renal Replacement Therapy (EPOCH-RRT) Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about factors that are important to patients with advanced kidney disease and their perspectives at the time they choose a dialysis modality. EPOCH-RRT, a study supported in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), was designed to assist patients with this choice by identifying such factors and effectively provide relevant information. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, designed and conducted in collaboration with a multistakeholder advisory panel that included patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 180 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD; estimated glomerular filtration rate < 25mL/min/1.73m2), either non-dialysis-dependent (NDD-CKD; n=65) or on dialysis therapy (hemodialysis [HD], n=77; or peritoneal dialysis, n=38), recruited across the United States through social media and in-person contacts. METHODOLOGY: Semistructured telephone interviews including open- and closed-ended questions. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Mixed methods, integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches; themes identified through content analysis of interview transcripts by 2 independent coders. RESULTS: Themes most often reported as important were keeping as much independence as possible, quality and quantity of life, and flexibility in daily schedule. Other factors (eg, concern about the way they look) differed across patient subgroups based on age, sex, and NDD-CKD/dialysis modality. Among patients who had initiated dialysis therapy, almost half (47%) the HD patients believed that the decision to be treated by HD had largely not been their choice; this was only reported by 3% of peritoneal dialysis patients. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment through social media and willingness to participate in lengthy telephone interviews resulted in a select sample that may not be representative of the broader advanced CKD population; therefore, generalizability of findings cannot be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of patient priorities in care improves health outcomes. Given the perceived limited role in the choice of dialysis treatment, our findings support the need for interventions to improve shared decision making on dialysis treatment options, targeting both patients and clinicians.

Overcoming Barriers in Kidney Health-Forging a Platform for Innovation.

Innovation in kidney diseases is not commensurate with the effect of these diseases on human health and mortality or innovation in other key therapeutic areas. A primary cause of the dearth in innovation is that kidney diseases disproportionately affect a demographic that is largely disenfranchised, lacking sufficient advocacy, public attention, and funding. A secondary and likely consequent cause is that the existing infrastructure supporting nephrology research pales in comparison with those for other internal medicine specialties, especially cardiology and oncology. Citing such inequities, however, is not enough. Changing the status quo will require a coordinated effort to identify and redress the existing deficits. Specifically, these deficits relate to the need to further develop and improve the following: understanding of the disease mechanisms and pathophysiology, patient engagement and activism, clinical trial infrastructure, and investigational clinical trial designs as well as coordinated efforts among critical stakeholders. This paper identifies potential solutions to these barriers, some of which are already underway through the Kidney Health Initiative. The Kidney Health Initiative is unique and will serve as a current and future platform from which to overcome these barriers to innovation in nephrology.

Abeta42 immunization in Alzheimer's disease generates Abeta N-terminal antibodies.

Serum samples from Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients immunized with Abeta42 (AN1792) were analyzed to determine the induced antibody properties including precise amyloid-beta peptide (Abeta) epitopes and amyloid plaque-binding characteristics. The predominant response in these patients is independent of whether or not meningoencephalitis developed and is against the free amino terminus of Abeta. The immunostaining of amyloid plaques in brain tissue by patient sera is adsorbable by a linear Abeta1-8 peptide, demonstrating that the antibodies are directed predominantly to this epitope and not dependent on Abeta conformations or aggregates specific to plaques. Furthermore, the antibodies are not capable of binding amyloid precursor protein and would be predicted to be competent in facilitating clearance of amyloid plaques in AD brains.

Epitope and isotype specificities of antibodies to beta -amyloid peptide for protection against Alzheimer's disease-like neuropathology.

Transgenic PDAPP mice, which express a disease-linked isoform of the human amyloid precursor protein, exhibit CNS pathology that is similar to Alzheimer's disease. In an age-dependent fashion, the mice develop plaques containing beta-amyloid peptide (Abeta) and exhibit neuronal dystrophy and synaptic loss. It has been shown in previous studies that pathology can be prevented and even reversed by immunization of the mice with the Abeta peptide. Similar protection could be achieved by passive administration of some but not all monoclonal antibodies against Abeta. In the current studies we sought to define the optimal antibody response for reducing neuropathology. Immune sera with reactivity against different Abeta epitopes and monoclonal antibodies with different isotypes were examined for efficacy both ex vivo and in vivo. The studies showed that: (i) of the purified or elicited antibodies tested, only antibodies against the N-terminal regions of Abeta were able to invoke plaque clearance; (ii) plaque binding correlated with a clearance response and neuronal protection, whereas the ability of antibodies to capture soluble Abeta was not necessarily correlated with efficacy; (iii) the isotype of the antibody dramatically influenced the degree of plaque clearance and neuronal protection; (iv) high affinity of the antibody for Fc receptors on microglial cells seemed more important than high affinity for Abeta itself; and (v) complement activation was not required for plaque clearance. These results indicate that antibody Fc-mediated plaque clearance is a highly efficient and effective process for protection against neuropathology in an animal model of Alzheimer's disease.