Series: Public engagement with research. Part 3: Sharing power and building trust through partnering with communities in primary care research

Background : This article focuses on potential strategies to support primary care researchers in working in partnership with the public and healthcare professionals. Partnership working can potentially to improve the relevance and usefulness of research and ensure better research and health outcomes. Discussion : We describe what we mean by partnership working and the importance of reflecting on power and building trusting relationships. To share power in partnership working, it is essential to critically reflect on the multiple dimensions of power, their manifestations, and your own power. Power can influence relationships and therefore, it is essential to build trust with partners. Next, we outline how the context of primary care research and decisions about who you work with and how to work together, are vital considerations that are imbued with power. Lastly, we suggest different ways of working in partnership to address different dimensions of power. We provide examples from primary care research across Europe regarding how to recognise, tackle, and challenge, invisible, hidden and visible power. Conclusion : We conclude by proposing three calls to actions to encourage researchers working in primary care to consider the multiple dimensions of power and move towards partnership working. First is to use participatory methods to improve the inclusivity of your research. Second is to include patients and the public in decisions about the design, delivery and development of research and its outcomes. Third is to address various systemic and institutional barriers which hinder partnership working

EUPATI Guidance for Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development (R&D); Guidance for Pharmaceutical Industry-Led Medicines R&D

The importance and merits of greater patient involvement in medicines research and development (R&D) are commonly acknowledged and are thought to offer benefits for all involved parties. It helps to improve discovery, development, and evaluation of new effective medicines, based on the collaborative identification and understanding of unmet needs, research priorities, optimization of clinical study design, outcome measures, and endpoint development. It can result in increased transparency, trust and mutual respect between patients and other stakeholders. This applies to all stages of medicines R&D, from industry-led research, to regulation and licensing of medicines, to appraisal by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Integration of patients into the medicines development process needs to be structured and governed by clear rules and modes of operation to be effective and yield the best results for all stakeholders. Existing codes of practice for patient involvement with various stakeholders do not comprehensively cover the full scope of R&D, with the exception of more general statements applicable to interaction. Overarching guidance on meaningful and ethical interaction is missing. One specific aim of the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) was to close this gap through the development of guidance documents for selected stakeholders. Four separate guidance documents were developed, incorporating the results from comprehensive internal and external consultation. They cover patient involvement in: pharmaceutical industry-led medicines R&D; ethics committees; regulatory authorities; HTA. Each guidance suggests where patient involvement could be adopted or strengthened. The EUPATI guidance document for patient involvement in industry-led medicines research and development covers the interaction between patients and the pharmaceutical industry within all functions throughout the medicines R&D lifecycle in relation to medicines for human use. It relates to activities pre-approval and post approval, involving individuals and groups of patients. The guideline distinguishes between the level of expertise in a disease area that is required and the different areas where patient involvement can take place; however, this is not meant to limit involvement, and these opportunities may change and increase over time. This EUPATI guidance document is aimed at the pharmaceutical industry who want to engage patients in R&D activities, however all stakeholders involving patients in pharmaceutical-led medicines R&D should understand and use this EUPATI guidance document

EUPATI and Patients in Medicines Research and Development: Guidance for Patient Involvement in Ethical Review of Clinical Trials

Involvement of patients in the research and development process (R&D) of new medicines—in all areas of indications—today is a widely accepted strategy in pharmaceutical industry to ensure relevance and suitability of the treatment under development. This may consist in, but is not limited to, patient input to achieve more patient-friendly protocol design, endpoint, and comparator selection as well as disease-adapted study conditions in a pre- or post-marketing clinical trial. Ethical aspects and especially the balance of benefit and risk in a clinical trial are frequently judged differently by clinical researchers, regulators, ethics committees, and patients due to their different focus. The final assessment of the ethical aspects of a planned clinical trial is provided by an independent ethics committee consisting of physicians and other experts in healthcare and clinical trial methodology as well as of lay persons. The participation of patients in ethics committees is a much-discussed concept, its suitability disputed in many countries, and only limited experience on best practices is available. In order to be effective and yield the best results for all stakeholders, integration of patients into the medicines development process needs to be structured and governed by clear, mutually agreed rules and modes of operation. Communication and collaboration processes need to be systematically implemented to establish transparency, trust and respect between those developing new medicines and their users, respectively between those involved in design and approval of clinical trials and participants. In particular agreement on the ethical aspects of a clinical trial and/or its overall ethical acceptability is a prerequisite before the start of a clinical trial. Existing codes of practice for patient involvement with various stakeholders do not comprehensively cover the full scope of R&D, with the exception of more general statements on interaction. Overarching guidance on meaningful and ethical interaction is missing. One specific aim of the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) was to close this gap through the development of guidance documents for ethics committees, pharmaceutical industry-led medicines R&D, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA). This EUPATI “Guidance for patient involvement in ethical review of clinical trials” gives practical recommendations for ground rules and lists options for conditions and practices for involving patients in the work of ethics committees to enable trustful and constructive collaboration whatever the national (legal) framework for patient involvement in ethics committees might be. The guidance sets the collaboration of patients in ethics committees in the broader context of relevance and opportunities for patient input on ethics in the overall medicines R&D and specifically the overall clinical trial process from concept development to trial result reporting in lay summaries. In addition to a presentation of the full text of the Guidance, this article aims at providing additional background information on the development process of the Guidance, as well as insight into the current debate on this topic

EUPATI Guidance for Patient Involvement in Medicines Research and Development: Health Technology Assessment

The main aim of health technology assessment (HTA) is to inform decision making by health care policy makers. It is a systematic process that evaluates the use of health technologies and generally involves a critical review of international evidence related to clinical effectiveness of the health technology vs. the best standard of care. It can also include an evaluation of cost effectiveness, and social and ethical impacts in the local health care system. The HTA process advises whether or not a health technology should be used, and if so, how it is best used and which patients are most likely to benefit from it. The importance of patient involvement in HTA is becoming widely recognized, for scientific and democratic reasons. The extent of patient involvement in HTA varies considerably across Europe. Commonly HTA is still focused on quantitative evidence to determine clinical and/or cost effectiveness, but the interest in understanding patients' experiences and preferences is increasing. Some HTA bodies provide support for participation in their processes, but again this varies widely across Europe. The involvement of patients in HTA is determined at the national and regional level, and is not subject to any European-wide legislation. The guidance text presented in this article was developed as part of the work of the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) and covers the interaction between HTA bodies and patients and their representatives when medicines are being assessed. Other EUPATI guidance documents relate to patient involvement in pharmaceutical industry-led research and development, ethics committees, and regulatory authorities. The guidance provides recommendations for activities to support patient involvement in HTA bodies and specific guidance for individual HTA processes. It seeks to improve patient involvement, using the outcomes of published research and consensus-building exercises. It also draws on good practice examples from individual HTA bodies. The guidance is not intended to be prescriptive and should be used according to specific circumstances, national legislation, or the unique needs of each interaction. This article represents the formal publication of the HTA guidance text with discussion about recent progress in, and continuing barriers to, patient involvement in HTA

Simulation Training to Improve Informed Consent and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Sampling in Pediatric Trials

Background: Pediatric trials to add missing data for evidence-based pharmacotherapy are still scarce. A tailored training concept appears to be a promising tool to cope with critical and complex situations before enrolling the very first patient and subsequently to ensure high-quality study conduct. The aim was to facilitate study success by optimizing the preparedness of the study staff shift. Method: An interdisciplinary faculty developed a simulation training focusing on the communication within the informed consent procedure and the conduct of the complex pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) sampling within a simulation facility. Scenarios were video-debriefed by an audio-video system and manikins with artificial blood simulating patients were used. The training was evaluated by participants' self-assessment before and during trial recruitment. Results: The simulation training identified different optimization potentials for improved informed consent process and study conduct. It facilitated the reduction of avoidable errors, especially in the early phase of a clinical study. The knowledge gained through the intervention was used to train the study teams, improve the team composition and optimize the on-ward setting for the FP-7 funded “LENA” project (grant agreement no. 602295). Self-perceived ability to communicate core elements of the trial as well as its correct performance of sample preparation increased significantly (mean, 95% CI, p ≤ 0.0001) from 3 (2.5–3.5) to four points (4.0–4.5), and from 2 (1.5–2.5) to five points (4.0–5.0). Conclusion: An innovative training concept to optimize the informed consent process and study conduct was successfully developed and enabled high-quality conduct of the pediatric trials as of the very first patient visit

A composite endpoint for acceptability evaluation of oral drug formulations in the pediatric population

Introduction: A medicine’s acceptability is likely to have significant impact on pediatric compliance. EMA and FDA guidance on this topic ask for investigation of acceptability. Although palatability and deglutition are denoted as elements of acceptability, the impact of both on acceptability remains unclear as an unambiguous definition of acceptability is lacking. Actually, globally applied standards for acceptability definition, testing methodology and assessment criteria do not exist. A definition of acceptability establishing a composite endpoint that combines deglutition and palatability in different age groups is presented here. Methods: This composite acceptability endpoint is based on validated assessment methods for deglutition and palatability in children of different age groups with different galenic placebo formulations, in line with criteria EMA proposed for assessing acceptability in children from newborn to 18 years. Data from two studies investigating mini-tablets, oblong tablets, orodispersible films and syrup were used to investigate the validity, expediency and applicability of the suggested composite acceptability assessment tool. Results: The new composite endpoint is highly suitable and efficient to distinguish preferences of oral formulations: Mini-tablets and oblong tablets were significantly better accepted than syrup and orodispersible film. Conclusion: Since the suggested acceptability criterion takes both deglutition and palatability into account as composite endpoint, it is highly sensitive to detect acceptability differences between oral formulations. It is a well-defined, valid approach, which particularly meets regulatory requirements in an appropriate and comprehensive manner and may in future serve as an easy, standardized method to assess and compare acceptability of pediatric formulations with active substances

Young patients’ involvement in a composite endpoint method development on acceptability for paediatric oral dosage forms

Abstract Background In line with the European Paediatric Regulation, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) asks for investigation of a medicine’s acceptability in paediatric medicines development. A standardised acceptability testing method combining the outcome of “swallowability” and “palatability” assessments to a “composite endpoint on acceptability” was recently developed. Before this method’s suitability for selection of the most acceptable drug formulation of a new medicine for children can be broadly recommended, the acceptance and relevance of such established acceptability needs the critical review and input from young patients with understanding of the medicines development methodology. The benefit of involving patients in drug product development, clinical research and innovation is well established. Methods During a focus group meeting with the KIDS Barcelona (young people advisory group, age 16–23 years) the suitability of the “composite endpoint on acceptability” methodology was assessed. Via electronic questionnaires the importance of involving patients in the medicines development and in the acceptability method development was investigated. Questions on how best to determine palatability and swallowability were asked. The relevance of all EMA-listed acceptability elements was assessed via coloured and numbered stickers and questionnaires. Results The results showed that the involvement of young people in the medicines and acceptability method development was rated high. The group worked out that a 5-point smiley Likert Scale is preferred for assessing acceptability by 6–11 year old patients, while a Visual Analogue Scale is preferred for collecting adolescents’ opinion. The ranking of the EMA-listed acceptability elements showed that palatability and swallowability are the most relevant parameters, while colour of the medicine was rated as least relevant. These results, established face-to-face, were confirmed in a repeat of the ranking through an electronic questionnaire, completed by the participants individually and remotely, 5 weeks later. Conclusion This work reinforced the need and value to involve young people in the medicines lifecycle, and specifically in this acceptability method development. As next step other focus group meetings with more young people from different European countries are planned