Search

Background: In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development. Methods: In partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson's UK and the Parkinson's Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson's and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments. Results: Involving people with Parkinson's in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson's community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson's and clinicians. Conclusions: Conducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson's. Plain English summary: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments allow people living with a disease and participating in a clinical study to describe the symptoms and experiences that they consider meaningful. PRO instruments use tools such as questionnaires and scales to capture patient perspectives on a treatment that might not be captured by a clinical measurement. It is recommended that the patient community and patient experts are included in the development of PRO instruments to accurately capture information that is important to them. Building on the experience of a recent PRO research project in support of UCB pharmaceutical programs, this article provides recommendations on how pharmaceutical companies can partner with patient organizations and involve patient experts as joint investigators in the co creation of PRO instruments. Despite the additional resource and time required, involving patient experts and patient organizations into the research collaboration had a strong positive impact and ensured that the PROs were meaningful to patients (in this instance, people living with early-stage Parkinson's). Patient organizations facilitated patient engagement and recruitment in research activities, maintained communication with the pharmaceutical company's research team, and built trust between collaborators by implementing patient engagement tools and best practices. Patient experts contributed to several parts of the PRO instrument development process: study design, identifying key symptoms and experiences, and developing individual PRO questions. Co-creation between the pharmaceutical company, patient experts, and patient organizations resulted in considerable improvements to typical PRO instrument development for use in clinical trials and is thus recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The wide application of patient engagement and its associated benefits has increased across government, academic and pharmaceutical research. However, neither an identified standard practice for the process of engagement, nor utilization of common metrics to assess associated outcomes, exists. Parkinson's Foundation developed a patient engagement framework and metrics to assess engagement within the academic research and drug development sectors. This approach was developed over the course of several years through assessing the literature, acquiring feedback from researchers and people with Parkinson's disease and adapting practices to be relevant and generalizable across patient engagement projects. This framework includes the: 1) creation of a scope of work, 2) establishment of guiding principles, 3) selection and training of participants, 4) co‐determination of project metrics, 5) execution of the project and 6) dissemination of project findings. Parkinson's Foundation has also worked with academic, government and pharmaceutical stakeholders to identify metrics that assess both the quality of patient engagement and outcomes associated with patient engagement on projects. By improving patient engagement project methodologies and metrics, global clinical trials can have access to evidence‐based patient engagement practices to more efficiently capture the needs of, and potentially benefit, the patient community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt." The authors of the article reported errors in reference 13 and provided the correct link. The correction has been made to the original article, and the changes requested have been implemented. The publisher, Springer Nature, remains neutral in terms of jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. The authors of the article are Thomas Morel, Karlin Schroeder, Sophie Cleanthous, John Andrejack, Geraldine Blavat, William Brooks, Lesley Gosden, Carroll Siu, Natasha Ratcliffe, and Ashley F. Slagle. [Extracted from the article]