An innovative and collaborative partnership between patients with rare disease and industry-supported registries: the Global aHUS Registry

Len Woodward, Sally Johnson, Johan Vande Walle, Joran Beck, Christoph Gasteyger, Christoph Licht, Gema Ariceta, aHUS Registry SAB, Len Woodward, Sally Johnson, Johan Vande Walle, Joran Beck, Christoph Gasteyger, Christoph Licht, Gema Ariceta, aHUS Registry SAB

Abstract

Background: Patients are becoming increasingly involved in research which can promote innovation through novel ideas, support patient-centred actions, and facilitate drug development. For rare diseases, registries that collect data from patients can increase knowledge of the disease's natural history, evaluate clinical therapies, monitor drug safety, and measure quality of care. The active participation of patients is expected to optimise rare-disease management and improve patient outcomes. However, few reports address the type and frequency of interactions involving patients, and what research input patient groups have. Here, we describe a collaboration between an international group of patient organisations advocating for patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS), the aHUS Alliance, and an international aHUS patient registry (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01522183).

Results: The aHUS Registry Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) invited the aHUS Alliance to submit research ideas important to patients with aHUS. This resulted in 24 research suggestions from patients and patient organisations being presented to the SAB. The proposals were classified under seven categories, the most popular of which were understanding factors that cause disease manifestations and learning more about the clinical and psychological/social impact of living with the disease. Subsequently, aHUS Alliance members voted for up to five research priorities. The top priority was: "What are the outcomes of a transplant without eculizumab and what non-kidney damage is likely in patients with aHUS?". This led directly to the initiation of an ongoing analysis of the data collected in the Registry on patients with kidney transplants.

Conclusion: This collaboration resulted in several topics proposed by the aHUS Alliance being selected as priority activities for the aHUS Registry, with one new analysis already underway. A clear pathway was established for engagement between a patient advocacy group and an international research network. This should ensure the development of a long-term partnership which clearly benefits both groups.

Keywords: Patient advocacy; Patient engagement; Registry; aHUS.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Stakeholder collaboration in the aHUS Global Registry. Patient organisations, individual investigators, national coordinators and Alexion Pharmaceuticals have direct representation on the Global Registry SAB. Individual investigators and national coordinators can also contact the sponsor, a process facilitated by the clinical research organisation responsible for the Registry
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Involvement in aHUS research as reported by aHUS Alliance survey respondents in 2014 and 2016
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Enrolment in an aHUS patient registry as reported by aHUS Alliance survey respondents in 2014 and 2016
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Responses to aHUS Alliance 2016 survey question on how to encourage patient participation in research. Patients were asked “In your opinion, what would encourage greater patient participation in research studies or clinical trials?”. Responses were fixed (no free text option) and more than one option could be selected. This question was only included in the 2016 survey

References

    1. Parsons S, Starling B, Mullan-Jensen C, Tham SG, Warner K, Wever K. What do pharmaceutical industry professionals in Europe believe about involving patients and the public in research and development of medicines? A qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e008928. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008928.
    1. Landy DC, Brinich MA, Colten ME, Horn EJ, Terry SF, Sharp RR. How disease advocacy organizations participate in clinical research: a survey of genetic organizations. Genet Med. 2012;14(2):223–228. doi: 10.1038/gim.0b013e3182310ba0.
    1. Pinto D, Martin D, Chenhall R. The involvement of patient organisations in rare disease research: a mixed methods study in Australia. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2016;11:2. doi: 10.1186/s13023-016-0382-6.
    1. Workman TA. Engaging Patients in Information Sharing and Data Collection: The Role of Patient-Powered Registries and Research Networks. Rockville (MD): AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care; 2013.
    1. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MA. (eds). Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Third edition. (Prepared by the Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc., a Quintiles company] under Contract No. 290 2005 00351 TO7). AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-EHC111. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2014. . Accessed Nov 2016.
    1. Ayme S, Rodwell C. 2013 report on the state of the art of rare disease activities in Europe. Part I: overview of rare disease activities in Europe. Paris: European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases; 2013.
    1. EUCERD/EMA Workshop Report: Towards a public-private partnership for registries in the field of rare diseases (4 October 2011). . Accessed Nov 2016.
    1. Potter BK, Khangura SD, Tingley K, Chakraborty P, Little J. Translating rare-disease therapies into improved care for patients and families: what are the right outcomes, designs, and engagement approaches in health-systems research? Genet Med. 2016;18(2):117–123. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.42.
    1. Campistol JM, Arias M, Ariceta G, Blasco M, Espinosa L, Espinosa M, et al. An update for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome: Diagnosis and treatment. A consensus document. Nefrologia. 2015;35(5):421–447. doi: 10.1016/j.nefro.2015.07.005.
    1. Loirat C, Fakhouri F, Ariceta G, Besbas N, Bitzan M, Bjerre A, et al. An international consensus approach to the management of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome in children. Pediatr Nephrol. 2016;31(2):15–39. doi: 10.1007/s00467-015-3076-8.
    1. Fremeaux-Bacchi V, Fakhouri F, Garnier A, Bienaime F, Dragon-Durey MA, Ngo S, et al. Genetics and outcome of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome: a nationwide French series comparing children and adults. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2013;8(4):554–562. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04760512.
    1. Noris M, Caprioli J, Bresin E, Mossali C, Pianetti G, Gamba S, et al. Relative role of genetic complement abnormalities in sporadic and familial aHUS and their impact on clinical phenotype. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2010;5(10):1844–1859. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02210310.
    1. George JN, Nester CM. Syndromes of thrombotic microangiopathy. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(7):654–666. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1312353.
    1. Legendre CM, Licht C, Muus P, Greenbaum LA, Babu S, Bedrosian C, et al. Terminal complement inhibitor eculizumab in atypical hemolytic-uremic syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(23):2169–2181. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208981.
    1. Greenbaum LA, Fila M, Ardissino G, Al-Akash SI, Evans J, Henning P, et al. Eculizumab is a safe and effective treatment in pediatric patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. Kidney Int. 2016;89(3):701–711. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2015.11.026.
    1. Fakhouri F, Hourmant M, Campistol JM, Cataland SR, Espinosa M, Gaber AO, et al. Terminal Complement Inhibitor Eculizumab in Adult Patients With Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: A Single-Arm, Open-Label Trial. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2016;68(1):84–93. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.12.034.
    1. Licht C, Ardissino G, Ariceta G, Cohen D, Cole A, Gasteyger C, et al. The global aHUS registry: methodology and initial patient characteristics. BMC Nephrol. 2015;16:207. doi: 10.1186/s12882-015-0195-1.
    1. aHUS Global Poll 2014. . Accessed Nov 2016.
    1. aHUS Global Poll 2016. . Accessed Nov 2016.
    1. Forsythe LP, Szydlowski V, Murad MH, Ip S, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, et al. A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(Suppl 3):S788–S800. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2895-9.
    1. Wastfelt M, Fadeel B, Henter JI. A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs. J Intern Med. 2006;260(1):1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01666.x.
    1. Montserrat Moliner A, Waligora J. The European union policy in the field of rare diseases. Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(6):268–277. doi: 10.1159/000355930.
    1. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):213–236. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00214-7.
    1. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
    1. Abma TA, Broerse JE. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expect. 2010;13(2):160–173. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi