Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVES: Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research." METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006-2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics. A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings. RESULTS: Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were: "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions. CONCLUSION: Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

The setpoint study (ACTG A5217): effect of immediate versus deferred antiretroviral therapy on virologic set point in recently HIV-1-infected individuals.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of antiretroviral therapy during early human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection remain unproved. METHODS: A5217 study team randomized patients within 6 months of HIV-1 seroconversion to receive either 36 weeks of antiretrovirals (immediate treatment [IT]) or no treatment (deferred treatment [DT]). Patients were to start or restart antiretroviral therapy if they met predefined criteria. The primary end point was a composite of requiring treatment or retreatment and the log(10) HIV-1 RNA level at week 72 (both groups) and 36 (DT group). RESULTS: At the June 2009 Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) review, 130 of 150 targeted participants had enrolled. Efficacy analysis included 79 individuals randomized ≥72 weeks previously. For the primary end point, the IT group at week 72 had a better outcome than the DT group at week 72 (P = .005) and the DT group at week 36 (P = .002). The differences were primarily due to the higher rate of progression to needing treatment in the DT group (50%) versus the IT (10%) group. The DSMB recommended stopping the study because further follow-up was unlikely to change these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Progression to meeting criteria for antiretroviral initiation in the DT group occurred more frequently than anticipated, limiting the ability to evaluate virologic set point. Antiretrovirals during early HIV-1 infection modestly delayed the need for subsequent treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00090779.

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.

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.

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.

Partner-based adherence intervention for second-line antiretroviral therapy (ACTG A5234): a multinational randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Adherence is key to the success of antiretroviral therapy. Enhanced partner support might benefit patients with previous treatment failure. We aimed to assess whether an enhanced partner-based support intervention with modified directly observed therapy would improve outcomes with second-line therapy in HIV-infected patients for whom first-line therapy had failed. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, randomised clinical trial at nine sites in Botswana, Brazil, Haiti, Peru, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Participants aged 18 years or older for whom first-line therapy had failed, with HIV RNA concentrations greater than 1000 copies per mL and with a willing partner, were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation, to receive partner-based modified directly observed therapy or standard of care. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV RNA concentration (≤10 000 copies per mL vs >10 000 copies per mL). Participants and site investigators were not masked to group assignment. Primary outcome was confirmed virological failure (viral load >400 copies per mL) by week 48. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00608569. FINDINGS: Between April 23, 2009, and Sept 29, 2011, we randomly assigned 259 participants to the modified directly observed therapy group (n=129) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). 34 (26%) participants in the modified directly observed therapy group achieved the primary endpoint of virological failure by week 48 compared with 23 (18%) participants in the standard-of-care group. The Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative probability of virological failure by week 48 was 25·1% (95% CI 17·7-32·4) in the modified directly observed therapy group and 17·3% (10·8-23·7) in the standard-of-care group, for a weighted difference in standard of care versus modified directly observed therapy of -6·6% (95% CI -16·5% to 3·2%; p=0·19). 36 (14%) participants reported at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event or laboratory abnormality (n=21 in the modified directly observed therapy group and n=15 in the standard-of-care group). INTERPRETATION: Partner-based training with modified directly observed therapy had no effect on virological suppression. The intervention does not therefore seem to be a promising strategy to increase adherence. Intensive follow-up with clinic staff might be a viable approach in this setting. FUNDING: AIDS Clinical Trials Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.