RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study explored self-reported knowledge and interest to learn more about medicines research, development and health technology assessment among Finnish general public. It also aimed to define possible knowledge gaps and needs for public education regarding these topics. DESIGN: Online survey with 503 participants. The questionnaire was originally developed as a part of the Needs Assessment Work Package of the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Project. The survey was carried out in Finland in 2019. METHODS: The survey was conducted as an online survey by Kantar TNS Gallup Forum online panel. The data were analysed by using the freely available programming language R. Relationships between the demographic characteristics (such as age, gender and education level) of respondents and their knowledge or interest in medicines research and development were determined using Pearson's χ2 tests. Statistically significant responses of demographic characteristics in the respondents' knowledge or interest in medicines research were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 503 respondents (age 16-64) only 12% reported having good or very good knowledge of medicines research and development in general. Regarding health technology assessment, pharmacoeconomics and regulation, the percentage of respondents reporting good or very good knowledge was as low as 8%. Respondents were most interested in learning more about predictive and personalised medicine (47%) and least interested in medicines regulation (30%) and pharmacoeconomics (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported knowledge about medicines research and development and health technology assessment appears to be very low in Finland. Patient and public participation is recognised as an important and essential element in up-to-date medical research and assessment of new treatments. In order to participate as an active and equal partner in these processes, the public needs more information and education in these topics.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , Adolescente , Adulto , Finlandia , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Evaluación de Necesidades , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Background: The European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland (EUPATI CH) was established as an association in 2016 with the mission to improve patient empowerment in Switzerland, raise public awareness of EUPATI's education material, and foster multi-stakeholder partnerships in order to promote public involvement in all aspects of medicines research and development (R&D). In order to achieve its goal of improving patient involvement (PI) in all processes of medicines R&D in Switzerland and to obtain guidance and recommendations for future activities, EUPATI CH initiated a multi-stakeholder survey on PI experiences, hurdles, and best practices. The survey enabled EUPATI CH to obtain and analyze the views of various stakeholders and shape its workplan. Methods: Data collection occurred between January and July 2019 using a survey and semi-structured interviews with individual stakeholders from different groups. The online survey responses were analyzed using quantitative methods and the interviews were analyzed using qualitative methods. Results: The online survey was completed by 55 respondents (10%), and the semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholders. Respondents to the online survey were patient representatives (45%), researchers from academia (25%), individuals from the pharmaceutical industry (9%), healthcare professionals (23%), and representatives from government agencies (6%). Some respondents were also members of EUPATI CH. Thirty-eight percent of respondents consider PI in Switzerland to be limited or absent. They identified the main barriers to PI as, first and foremost, a lack of funds and human resources (65%), followed by a lack of information and a lack of education on how to become a patient advocate (21%), a lack of collaboration with other stakeholders (16%), and a lack of adequate resources. Respondents' expectations of EUPATI CH's role in supporting PI were to provide education for active PI and improve networking and collaboration among stakeholders. Conclusions: EUPATI CH's multi-stakeholder research identified some of the difficulties in promoting PI in medicines R&D in Switzerland, in particular the complex collaboration among stakeholders and a lack of funds, human resources, and knowledge. To respond to these difficulties, EUPATI CH has begun preparing a basic training course for patients that is adapted to Switzerland.
RESUMEN
With cannabis medicines now obtaining legal status in many international jurisdictions (generally on the authorisation of a medical professional), a rapid increase in consumer demand for access to cannabis as a therapeutic option in the treatment and management of a range of indications is being noted. Despite this accessibility, knowledge on optimal use is lacking. Further drug development and clinical trials at regulatory standards are necessary both if a better understanding of the efficacy of cannabis medicines, optimal product formulation and indication-specific dosing is needed and to ensure the broader quality and safety of cannabis medicines in the clinical setting.To enable this, clinical, academic and public calls for the undertaking of rigorous clinical trials to establish an evidence base for the therapeutic use of cannabis medicines have been made internationally. While this commitment to undertake human studies with cannabis medicines is welcomed, it has highlighted unique challenges, notably in the review stages of ethics and governance. This often results in lengthy delays to approval by Human Research Ethics Committees (herein 'HREC', Australia's nomenclature for Institutional Review Boards) and trial commencement. A principal concern in these cases is that in contrast to clinical trials using other more conventional pharmaceutical products, trials of cannabis medicines in humans often involve the use of an investigational product prior to some (or any) of the preclinical and pharmaceutical safety issues being established. This paucity of data around product safety, potential drug interactions, continuity of supply, shelf life and product storage results in apprehension by HRECs and governance bodies to endorse trials using cannabis medicines.This manuscript draws from the experiences of Australian researchers and staff involved in clinical trials of cannabis medicines to describe some of the common difficulties that may be faced in the HREC approval process. It also presents practical advice aimed to assist researchers, HRECs and governance officers navigate this complex terrain. While the authors' experiences are situated within the Australian setting, many of the barriers described are applicable within the international context and thus, the solutions that have been proposed are typically adaptive for use within other jurisdictions.
Asunto(s)
Cannabis , Australia , Cannabis/efectos adversos , Comités de Ética en Investigación , Humanos , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
Background: Involving patients' representatives in the research and development of medicinal products (medicines R&D) leads to better medical treatment. In 2014, the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI) was started with the goal of increasing the capacity and capabilities of patient representatives in this field. To make this academy more accessible and applicable for the Netherlands, a Dutch version was launched in September 2019. To explore the options for a durable infrastructure for organizing the Dutch EUPATI course, a multi-stakeholder qualitative study was done. The views of various stakeholders from pharmaceutical industry, governmental organizations, patient organizations, and the academic world were examined about the benefits and challenges of this course for patient involvement in medicines R&D. Methods: From April to June 2019, 10 semi-structured interviews were completed, each with two representatives of all stakeholders involved. In addition, individual Dutch graduates of the European EUPATI (EUPATI fellows) were consulted via an e-mail questionnaire. Using a directed content analysis based on the Business Canvas Model, the transcribed interviews were coded, analyzed, and final attributes consolidated. Results: The semi-structured interviews and completed questionnaires explored how the stakeholders are aiming to assist patient involvement in medicines R&D through the Dutch EUPATI course. The building blocks of the Business Canvas Model were described with concrete attributes for making the business case. Stakeholders stated that the Dutch EUPATI course was an incentive for patient involvement in medicines development, for patient-oriented research and outcomes, for the availability of patient representatives (expert ones in particular), and for the content and representation quality of patient representatives. The key values for collaborating in the network as mentioned by the stakeholders were neutrality, patients' interests, equality, independence, shared objectives, long-term commitment, transparency, understanding, trust, and respect. Conclusions: Patient involvement in medicines R&D is evolving and the demand for qualified patient representatives is growing. Dutch stakeholders confirmed the added value of the patients' academy and expressed their willingness to contribute. Important values and conditions for long term collaboration were formulated.
RESUMEN
Lars Sundstrom is Director of Enterprise and Translation at the West of England Academic Health Sciences Network [1] (UK), a Professor of Practice in Translational Medicine and Co-Director of the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research at Bristol University [2] (UK), and an honorary Professor of Medicine at Cardiff University (UK). He has extensive experience in translational medicine and clinical neurosciences, holding positions at several eminent universities. He has also held executive and board-level positions at several SMEs, developing new therapeutics for neurological conditions and tools for drug discovery. He has also been an advisor to several UK and local government task forces and to the European Commission and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations. He was a founding member of the European Brain Council in Brussels, and set up the Severnside Alliance for Translational Research, developing a regional network partnership to link clinical and basic scientists. He was also involved in the creation of Health Research Wales.
RESUMEN
The Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science (CORS) and Biopeople at the University of Copenhagen held a workshop in May 2015 titled "Patient Involvement in Medicines Development and Approvals: A Paradigm Shift Towards True Patient Impact in Medicines Development and Regulatory Science" that acknowledged the importance of having patients more involved in the entire process of medicines research and development (R&D) and life cycle management. Four key stakeholders, representing patients, academia, industry, and regulatory authorities, each gave their view and perspective on the status and challenges of current patient involvement. From the 3 breakout sessions, it was concluded that patient-reported outcomes (ie, the report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else), was considered as an important tool when deciding endpoints. It was agreed that professionalization of the patient within medicine R&D to some extent would be necessary for obtaining influence. However, the industry should also seek to accommodate to the patient instead of waiting passively for patients to become educated. A much better organized and stronger involvement of patients was called for. However, this should not only rely on goodwill, but should preferably be implemented by legal requirements, so as to secure compliance by all stakeholders. An independent platform with the purpose of providing access to patient experience was proposed. A research and educational center such as CORS, which was founded on cross-sectorial and cross-disciplinary cooperation, is an example of an institution that could be a good starting point for hosting such a platform.