Transcript Patient - Accelerate

Team Science:
Partnering with Patients
Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, MHS
Director, Health Services and Outcomes Research
Associate Director, DCRI
1
What problems are we trying
to solve?
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
A Persistent Problem – Major Gaps in Evidence
3
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Tricoci P et al. JAMA 2009;301:831-41
Level of Evidence A
*Guidelines expressing
Level of Evidence
Current Guidelines*AF
11.7%
Heart failure
26.4%
PAD
15.3%
STEMI
13.5%
Perioperative
12.0%
Secondary prevention
22.9%
Stable angina
6.4%
SV arrhythmias
6.1%
UA/NSTEMI
Valvular disease
23.6%
0.3%
VA/SCD
9.7%
PCI
11.0%
CABG
19.0%
Pacemaker
4.9%
Radionuclide imaging
4.8%
0%
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
10%
20%
30%
Trial Hyperinflation
Berndt E, Cockburn I. Monthly Labor Review, June 2014
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
The Driver is Complexity
Berndt E, Cockburn I. Monthly Labor Review, June 2014
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Surprisingly….. Less Participation
Berndt E, Cockburn I. Monthly Labor Review, June 2014
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
2
HOW CAN WE ENGAGE
PATIENTS (PARTICIPANTS)?
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Across the continuum?
• Provide information
on unmet need aand
therapeutic burden
• Interest of research
question to patient
community
Develop
the
study
concept
• Provide
input on study
design such as barriers to
participation, study
endpoints, and risk/benefit
perception
Secure
Funding
•Work with researcher to
secure NIH, PCORI,
AHRQ funding
• DART & Halo Therapeutics,
e.g. raise seed funding
•Fundraise for own research
Prepare
the
Study
Protocol
Create
study
procedure
• Recruit study participants
• Serve as a peer advocate
during the informed
consent procedure
Implemen
t the Study
• Help finalize eligibility
criteria within the study
protocol
• Assist in creating the
informed consent form
Monitor
the
study
Analyze
data and
interpret
results
•Serve on a Data Safety
Monitoring Board
• Provide recommendations
for revising study protocol if
changes need to be made
• Advise study recruitment
Courtesy: Bray Patrick-Lake, MFS
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
• Provide
feedback on how
the patient
community will
view results
Disseminate study
information
• Serve on FDA
advisory committees
or post-market
surveillance
initiatves
FDA
Post
Review Approval
Studies
and
Approval
•Work with research team to ensure
study participants get feedback from
study
•Write newsletter articles or blog
about results
• Co-present results with researcher
at a conference or support group
Common problems with protocols from patient
perspective
• Exclusion/inclusion criteria so
stringent that no “real” patients meet
criteria
• Study not feasible
– Procedural burden too high
– Unmanageable dosing regimen
– Too many study appointments
– Location not convenient
– Pediatric patients needing to be
seen during school hours
Courtesy: Bray Patrick-Lake, MFS
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Perspectives on Patient Engagement
Per Investigator (Worries)
• Single-minded focus on
cures
• Disrupt or delegitimize
the peer review process
• Bring an agenda or too
much emotion
• Lack sufficient experience
to speak to essential
issues of scientific merit
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Per Patient (Benefits)
• Inspire scientists
• Improve plans for
recruitment, retention,
outreach, follow up,
dissemination
• Provide “real life”
perspectives on
risk/benefits
• Serve as reminder to
ultimate end product of
concrete health benefits
rather than an ‘academic’
only product
Meaningful Patient Engagement is often a
foreign language
Engagement Worst to Best
• Online reports &
anecdotes
• Patient visits
• The sign off
• Survey
• Focus group
• Patient Stakeholders
• Co-investigators
Translation to Researchers
•隨機雙盲對照研究
•观察性研究
•病例對照研究
•病例對照研究
•案例系列
•病例報告
•想法，意見
Courtesy: Bray Patrick-Lake, MFS
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Patient Advocate Review of Research
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why is this study important?
Who does this study benefit?
Do patients agree that clinical equipoise exists?
Will this change the standard of care?
Who’s eligible for the study? Are they representative of the
patient population?
Are there other similar trials?
Does this fill a gap in research?
Will patients be interested in enrolling?
Is the study feasible?
Is the informed consent readable and clear?
How will study results be communicated?
Earp, J.L., French, E.A, and Gilkey, M.B. (2008) Research Advocacy in Traditional Settings: Questions of Influence and
Legitimacy. In Patient Advocacy for Health Care Quality: Strategies for Achieving Patient-Centered Care (pp. 445-478).
Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
3
CAN PATIENT
(PARTICIPANT)
ENGAGEMENT MATTER?
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
What is PROSPER?
• Patient-centered Research into Outcomes Stroke
Patients prefer and Effectiveness Research
• Above all, PROSPER is a research collaboration
– Patients
– Doctors
– Caregivers
– Researchers
• Multiple perspectives and
experiences = better understanding!
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Patient-Centered Research
into Outcomes Stroke
Patients Prefer and
Effectiveness Research
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Real, live patients and what they say…
“The worse doctor was a… cardiologist”
“The doctors didn’t give me the clot-buster because I was on coumadin”
“Doctors didn’t listen to what I needed”
PROSPER Interview with Lesley Maisch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KubuT1_6Lrw
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
A Few Questions…
Will statins be as
good for me as
someone younger?
And what dose?
Can
antidepressant
s improve my
quality of life
after stroke?
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
I’ve had a stroke and
worry about falls. Will
blood thinners hurt
me?
Which one is better?
What are the
tradeoffs between
long-term health and
potential negative
effects of my
medications?
How do the new
anticoagulants
affect my
likelihood of
having another
stroke?
What outcomes are we addressing?
– Days alive and at home (“home-time”)
– Any fatigue or depression experienced as a result of
the stroke
– Quality of life
– Mobility
– Whether patient can complete normal activities like
dressing, eating, shopping
– How well patients are tolerating their medications/any
side effects they are experiencing
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
PROSPER: Personalized Decisions
http://www.prosper-stroke.org/
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
4
CAN WE DO EVEN BETTER?
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
75m+
?
Patients walk through the doors
of hospitals and clinics each year
with questions about their health
and their care.
How do we study their experiences to
find answers and create solutions that
change care and improve outcomes?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hospital.htm
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
A United Network: PCORnet
PCORnet is a network of patients,
clinicians, researchers, health
systems and health plans united
to efficiently generate evidence to
improve patient-centered
outcomes
“Research Infrastructure
Done Differently”
Hallmarks of PCORnet
1. Highly engaged patients, clinicians, health systems,
researchers and other partners
2. A collaborative community supported by robust governance
3. Analysis-ready standardized data with strong privacy
protections
4. Oversight that protects patients, supports the timely conduct
of research, and builds trust in the research enterprise
5. Research that is sustainably integrated into care settings
and with communities of patients
Enabling Pragmatic Research:
eScreening, eEnrollment and eFollowup
OR
DCRI FOLLOW-UP
•Patient Reported Outcomes
•Medication use
•Health outcomes
ADAPTABLE
Enrollee
Baseline Data
4
8
12
Portal FOLLOW-UP
•Patient Reported Outcomes
•Medication use
•Health outcomes
16
20 ….
30
PCORNet Coordinating Center FOLLOW-UP
• Via Common Data Model
• Longitudinal health outcomes
CMS & Payer Virtual Data Warehouse FOLLOW-UP
• Longitudinal health outcomes
25
Conclusions
 Patients are a driving force in improving care and will be for
the research enterprise.
 Meaningful engagement of patient stakeholders across the
research continuum will improve quality, efficiency and
translation of research.
 Patient engagement requires an investment of time and
resources just like any component of research
 Engaging patients as partners for research is inspirational
and fun!
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007
Thanks!
All Rights Reserved, Duke Medicine 2007