• Save
Harms and Benefits in Health Research - A patients' view (Jan Geissler)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Harms and Benefits in Health Research - A patients' view (Jan Geissler)

on

  • 382 views

Presentation of Jan Geissler at EFGCP Annual Conference on 29 January 2014 about "Harms and Benefits in Health Research: The patients' perspective".

Presentation of Jan Geissler at EFGCP Annual Conference on 29 January 2014 about "Harms and Benefits in Health Research: The patients' perspective".

Statistics

Views

Total Views
382
Views on SlideShare
284
Embed Views
98

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 98

http://www.patvocates.net 78
http://patvocates.net 19
http://c-hugopatv 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Harms and Benefits in Health Research - A patients' view (Jan Geissler) Harms and Benefits in Health Research - A patients' view (Jan Geissler) Presentation Transcript

  • Considering Harms and Benefits: A patient perspective 29 January 2014, EFGCP Annual Conference Jan Geissler, CML Advocates Network / EUPATI
  • Willingness of patients to take risk for potential benefits differs Survival probability CML IV 2013, 10 years survival 83% Mortality of co-morbidities > CML CML IIIA 2000, 10 years survival 50% CML III CML I/II CML I/II CML I Year after diagnosis German CML Study Group (2013) 1990s
  • Quality of life (%) Cure Un tre ate Effective palliation, increased survival d Effective palliation, same survival Overtreatment decreased survival Overtreatment, same survival Overall survival Start of therapy Lifetime gained 3 Senn. H. J.. Z. Allg. Med. 55. (1979) 284-295. View slide
  • It is not just about clinical efficacy: Different patients want different things Being part of decision-making? Ownership vs “fix it for me”?  A quick fix vs. long durable remissions?  Maximum disease control?  Fewer side-effects / better QoL?   Oral outpatient treatment or hospital based care? Ability to work? Have a social life?  Impact on family / family planning?   Financial impact (travel, patient/carer’s ability to work) View slide
  • There is no „magic bullet“ for most patients yet   “Success stories” available only to small numbers of cancers, rare diseases, patients at “best age” Research is crucial to address unmet needs RareCare (Gatta et al, 2012)
  • What patients need to know about BENEFITS in clinical trials  Knowing that trials exist at all  Benefits of participation in trials • Personal benefit: Access to innovative treatment, “hope” or “last resort”, hope for response, closer monitoring, better quality of life • Altruistic reasons: Contributing to progress beyond their own case
  • Quality measures of study sites are improving overall quality of care & outcome  Example quality assurance programme QIII 2001 German Working Group Gynecological Oncology Ovarian Cancer (AGO OVAR)  Standard therapy FIGO I-IIA Site without clinical trials (n=68) Study center (n=56 patients) 52% 48% 25% Standard therapy Suboptimal therapy 75% Jalid Sehouli (Charité), on: QS-Programm der AGO Organkommission OVAR, Zentralbl Gynakol 2005; A. du Bois DOI 10.1055/s-2005-836289
  • What patients want to know about RISKS in clinical trials        Uncertainty/risk of therapy, prior results of studies Impact on quality of life, unpleasant diagnostics Risks about fertility Pediatric trials: administration Influence on family life (intensity of care) and financial impact (travel) Influence on ability to work (both patient & carers) Protection from unauthorized and unwarranted use of data and tissue: stigma and discrimination
  • Barriers to trial participation are well documented 1      1 Uncertainty: Proven vs. experimental Lack of information and understanding (no real „informed consent “) Therapy preferences, fear of randomization Impact of quality of life, inappropriate burden of diagnostics Time of recruitment conflicts with patients‘ life (e.g. family planning, children, work, mobility) Fayter, D. et al. (2006): Systematic Review of barriers, modifiers and benefits involved in participation in cancer clinical trials.
  • Five suggestions to improve patients’ understanding of harms/benefits
  • 1. Make „informed consent“ and patient info more accessible §
  • 2. Involve patient organisations as navigators       Average consultation: 8-12 minutes Medical language barrier Different perceptions on what matters to patients Poor Adherence Patient organisations: experts on patient information, quality of life, anxiety, expectation management, “navigation” to clinical excellence, compliance Help understanding benefits and risks
  • 3. Educate the public on “basics of research” to improve understanding of risk and benefit in research ?
  • 4. Increase transparency of research (results, harms and benefits) to patients Research only helps if it reaches out to patients!  „Had I only known about this study / had I understood“ (Most patients are not even informed about the existence of studies, or there is no time for consultation. Patient organisations often act as navigators.)  „What was the result of ‚my‘ study?“ (90% of study participants want to know results of the study1, 93% never receive study results from doctors or sponsors2, 98% of study doctors would like to share results3)  Only what is being published is also being picked up (32% of industry studies, 18% of academic studies have not been published 5 years after conclusion of trial, BMJ @ 585 studies with >500 participants 4) 1. Shalowitz, D. and Miller, F. 2008. PLoS Medicine. 5: 714-720. 2. Sood, A. et al. 2009. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 84(3): 243-247. 3. Dixon-Woods, M. et al. 2006. BMJ. 332: 206-210. 4. Jones, C et al, BMJ 2013;347:f6104
  • 5. Seek input from patient organisations in regulatory risk/benefit assessment Example EMA: Considering refusal, withdrawal, suspension, revocation of a medicine in an area where there remains unmet medical need Advice on package leaflet, risk management plan Acceptability of comparators and endpoints Ethical issues Drug shortages
  • No research No research about us about us without us! without us! Jan Geissler Jan Geissler jan@patientsacademy.eu jan@patientsacademy.eu Twitter @jangeissler Twitter @jangeissler