Stella Stergiopoulos1, Debra L Michaels2, Barbara Lopez Kunz2, Kenneth A Getz3. 1. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University School of Medicine, 75 Kneeland Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA, 02111, USA. Stella.Stergiopoulos@tufts.edu. 2. Drug Information Association, DIA Global Center, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University School of Medicine, 75 Kneeland Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, drug development companies have sought out patient feedback to improve overall drug development. However, characterization of the overall impact and return on engaging with patients have not been determined. METHODS: The Drug Information Association (DIA), the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD), and 17 other stakeholder organizations collaborated on a study to (1) quantify and define patient-centric initiatives (PCIs) utilized in clinical research and development and (2) to define evidence-based metrics and performance indicators that demonstrate return on engagement (ROE) of specific PCIs. We conducted a literature review, industry surveys, and in-depth interviews to determine and measure the impact of adopted PCIs. RESULTS: We identified and defined 30 PCIs used to engage with patients. We analyzed 121 case studies and created a comprehensive list of metrics assessing overall return to the organization and to patients. Advocacy Group Support and Involvement, Conducting Patient Advisory Panels, and Focus Groups were examples of PCIs with the lowest cost and largest impact with respect to quality, speed, and impact on the patient relative to other PCIs. CONCLUSION: The results from the literature review and use cases provide drug development teams with evidence and insights to help facilitate the adoption of specific PCIs within their organization and to help select those initiatives that would provide the highest impact to patients and development organizations. It is also hoped that the biopharmaceutical industry will apply the standardized metrics in the toolkit to systematically assess the overall return on engagement.
BACKGROUND: Recently, drug development companies have sought out patient feedback to improve overall drug development. However, characterization of the overall impact and return on engaging with patients have not been determined. METHODS: The Drug Information Association (DIA), the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD), and 17 other stakeholder organizations collaborated on a study to (1) quantify and define patient-centric initiatives (PCIs) utilized in clinical research and development and (2) to define evidence-based metrics and performance indicators that demonstrate return on engagement (ROE) of specific PCIs. We conducted a literature review, industry surveys, and in-depth interviews to determine and measure the impact of adopted PCIs. RESULTS: We identified and defined 30 PCIs used to engage with patients. We analyzed 121 case studies and created a comprehensive list of metrics assessing overall return to the organization and to patients. Advocacy Group Support and Involvement, Conducting Patient Advisory Panels, and Focus Groups were examples of PCIs with the lowest cost and largest impact with respect to quality, speed, and impact on the patient relative to other PCIs. CONCLUSION: The results from the literature review and use cases provide drug development teams with evidence and insights to help facilitate the adoption of specific PCIs within their organization and to help select those initiatives that would provide the highest impact to patients and development organizations. It is also hoped that the biopharmaceutical industry will apply the standardized metrics in the toolkit to systematically assess the overall return on engagement.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical trial design; patient centricity; patient engagement; patient-centric initiatives; return on engagement; return on investment
Authors: Fatma Karapinar-Çarkit; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Mariam Sadik; Brigit van Soest; Wilma Knol; Florence van Hunsel; Diana A van Riet-Nales Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Sevgi E Fruytier; Lidewij Eva Vat; Rob Camp; François Houÿez; Hilde De Keyser; Denise Dunne; Davide Marchi; Laura McKeaveney; Richard H Pitt; Carina A C M Pittens; Meagan F Vaughn; Elena Zhuravleva; Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2022-01-17
Authors: Guillaume Marquis-Gravel; Holly Robertson; W Schuyler Jones; Danielle Riley; Daniel E Ford; David Crenshaw; Yvonne A Joosten; Lindsey Rudov; Adrian F Hernandez; Rachel Hess Journal: Trials Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Susan Samson; Jason J Northey; Irene Acerbi; Andrei Goga; Carl L Flink; Valerie M Weaver; Mark A LaBarge Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826